Renting vs. Buying: The Realities of Home-Ownership Print
Monday, 16th July 2007 (by J.D.)This article is about Choices, House and Home
This is a guest-post from Tim Ellis, author of Seattle Bubble, a blog and forum dedicated to discussing real estate market conditions in the Seattle area.
“If you rent, you’re throwing away your money.”
“Owning your own home is a forced savings plan.”
“Home ownership is an excellent path to build wealth.”
You’ve probably heard statements like these plenty of times. On television, radio, the internet, and in casual conversation. Such sentiments are common in any discussion that involves home-buying and personal finances. It’s common knowledge that buying a home is a better financial move than renting. After all, you’re building equity instead of throwing away your money, right? Well, maybe not quite… Rather than assuming the “common knowledge” on this subject is accurate, let’s take a look for ourselves at some of the financial differences between renting and home-buying.
A Real-World Example
For the purpose of comparing renting to owning in this article, I’ll be using real-world data gathered from my area (northeast of Seattle). Although most first-time buyers tend to move from renting an apartment to buying a larger, stand-alone house, as much as I can I will compare apples to apples.
- For rent, I located a 3-bed, 2.5-bath, 1,840 sqft house with an attached 2-car garage, on 0.2 acres. Monthly price: $1,495.
- For purchase I found a 3-bed, 2.5-bath, 1,850 sqft house with an attached 2-car garage, on 0.22 acres. Price: $424,950.
The two homes are located within two miles of each other in similar neighborhoods, and neither is located on a busy road. We’ll assume that our hypothetical homebuyer is a married couple with $85,000 in the bank to make a 20% down payment. To calculate mortgage payments we will use a recent 30-year fixed interest rate of 6.25%.
Let’s look at how the monthly costs break down (approximately) for our hypothetical potential first-time homebuyer:
| Renting | Buying | |
| Rent/Mortgage: | $1,495 | $2,093 |
| Insurance: | $20 | $163 |
| Property Tax: | - | $407 |
| Tax Savings*: | - | ($327) |
| Maintenance: | - | $354 |
| Total: | $1,515 | $2,690 |
*: (less standard deduction)
Right off the bat, you see that simply trading straight across from renting to owning results in a 78% more expensive monthly bill. That’s not exactly chump change. With even a slight upgrade from renting to buying (which most first-time buyers are prone to do), you can easily see how the total monthly costs would be more than double.
“If you rent, you’re throwing away your money.”
Common knowledge says that despite today’s large premium, buying a home is a “good investment”. Hey, at least you’re not “throwing away” your money, right? True, the renter in our scenario spends $1,515 every month that they will never see again. I wouldn’t exactly say it has been “thrown away” any more than money spent on any other good or service is “thrown away,” but granted, there is zero financial return on that money.
However, when you take a look at the breakdown of the homebuyer’s monthly expenses, a large amount is money that will never return, either. Insurance, property tax (less tax savings), and maintenance, add up to $517 every month that is being “thrown away.” Even worse is the amount spent on mortgage interest. Consider how much of a mortgage payment is applied toward loan interest throughout the life of a 30-year fixed loan:
| Years | % toward interest |
| 0-5 | ~80% |
| 6-10 | ~70% |
| 11-15 | ~60% |
| 16-20 | ~50% |
| 21-25 | ~35% |
| 26-30 | ~10% |
In the first five years, approximately 80% of the mortgage payment goes toward interest. That’s an additional $1,674, for a total of $2,191 being “thrown away” every single month by the homebuyer for the first five years. Ouch! In fact, not until the homebuyer has been paying down the mortgage for over 20 years will the amount they are “throwing away” be less than the renter.
“Owning your own home is a forced savings plan.”
As you can see above, if home buying is like a savings plan, it’s probably the worst savings plan on Earth. Would you voluntarily sign up for a savings plan where well over half of the money you deposit in the first 20 years simply vanishes, and from which you can only withdraw money by relocating and paying a 6-9% fee (not on the amount you have “saved” mind you, but on the total sale price of the home)? Of course not. That doesn’t sound anything like a savings plan.
If our potential homebuyer has that $85,000 saved up for a down payment and deposits it along with just half of the monthly savings over buying ($578 per month) into an account at 8% interest, the balance will be nearly $300,000 in just 10 years. That’s a liquid investment, that can be used for whatever you want, no relocation required. Buying a home is not a savings plan. Actually saving money every month is a savings plan.
“Home ownership is an excellent path to build wealth.”
If your goal is to build wealth, you will be much better off investing your money in the stock market than buying a home. While both stocks and housing are cyclical markets, long-term historic trends show that housing appreciates at a rate barely above inflation, while stocks tend to return an inflation-adjusted 7-10%.
In our hypothetical scenario, a renter who invested in the stock market with the $85,000 down payment plus the monthly difference between the $1,515 rent and the $2,690 home-buying costs would be over $500,000 better off after 30 years than the homebuyer, assuming 4% average appreciation.
An important thing to consider is that home prices in the United States are just now beginning to correct from an enormous unprecedented run-up in recent years. Despite what those in the business of selling real estate may insist, the correction in housing is still in the early stages. Four percent is most likely overly optimistic for most areas in the next 5-10 years. The only thing we know for sure is that double-digit gains are gone and won’t be coming back any time soon.
Also keep in mind — I mentioned it above but it bears repeating — in order to cash in on any “wealth” you build through your home you will need to sell that home and move. No, “extracting equity” does not count, since that simply results in a larger debt. Debt is not equal to Wealth.
Conclusion
For most people buying a home will result in their largest monthly bill (by far), and because they believe that it will bring them wealth or that they are “throwing away their money” if they rent, they often take on a much larger home debt than a prudent budget would allow. It is a real shame when people are driven to get into the housing market because of misplaced notions of imagined financial benefits. Of course, everyone’s circumstances are different, and for some (particularly those that live away from the coasts) the numbers may actually work out in favor of buying.
Don’t misunderstand me here. I am not saying that no one should buy a home, or that my example scenario is a golden standard of truth for all. Don’t take my word for it. Run the numbers for yourself, check out other articles (a small collection is listed below), and do what works for you. I highly recommend the great graphical calculator from The New York Times for comparing the financial aspects of renting and buying. Many people will consider all of the consequences — financial, emotional, etc. — and conclude that buying a home is the best decision. Just don’t trick yourself into thinking it’s a good financial decision if it’s not.
I myself intend to buy a house some day. However when that day comes, I will be buying a house because I want a nice, “permanent” place to live where I’m the boss, not because I think it will help me get me rich.
Additional Resources
Wall Street Journal: Your Home Isn’t the Nest Egg That You May Think It Is
New York Times: A Word of Advice During a Housing Slump: Rent
New York Times: Is it better to buy or rent? (graphical calculator)
The Motley Fool: The Worst Investment Ever
SmartMoney.com: Renting Makes More Financial Sense Than Homeownership
CNN Money: Stocks vs. Real Estate
Priced Out Forever: Renting vs. Purchasing

RSS Feeds
Facebook
Twitter

July 16th, 2007 at 5:41 am
“In fact, not until the homebuyer has been paying down the mortgage for over 20 years will the amount they are “throwing away” be less than the renter.”
This assumes that the renters rent never goes up, unlike a fixed rate mortgage it surely will. Also if the homeowner had gotten a 15 year fixed then at year 20 he would be on his fifth year of rent/mortgage free living.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Great article, describes perfectly what’s happening also here in Spain and the excuses that’s buyers use to justify themselves.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Actually that’s not true. That figures in annual rent increases of something like 3-5%. I forget the exact figure I used, but it was factored in.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Wonderful, wonderful article. Loved it.
Bankrate has alot of good tools on this as well.
I hear the “buying is smarter” all the time. Folks dont like it when you show them that buying isn’t necesarily smarter. I think there’s a stigma to renting.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:23 am
As a late-blooming homebuyer (I waited until age 48 to buy my first home), I do find myself a bit nostalgic for the relatively carefree renter’s life. I went from renting a three-bedroom apartment for $550/month to a three-bedroom house (not much more room but we now have a basement) for which I’m paying $2600/month (15-year mortgage), so the biggest impact on me has been cash flow. There are also lots of expenses that I don’t think we’d be making if we moved to another apartment, like new (better) furniture, curtains, a lawnmower, yard tools, etc., none of which will add to the value of the house but do improve our quality of life. However, those may be offset by the headaches of having to deal with and pay for all the repairs ourselves…it was so nice when you could just call the landlord and say, “sorry, but the roof is leaking.”
July 16th, 2007 at 6:30 am
I agree with much of what you have said. However I think you need to rethink the investment aspect. The leverage makes a difference because it effectively allows you to multiply your returns. While I am aware you can borrow to buy stocks the APR on these loans is typically much higher and the LVR lower. I’m personally keen on a mixed portfolio including both stocks and property.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Rents increase over time. The PI portion of a fixed-rate mortgage will not increase. Property taxes will increase over time. Leases often say that the rent can be increased by an amount equal to the increase in property taxes. House values also increase over time.
A renter gets no benefit from this.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:31 am
At just 3% 20 years looks about right, at 5% its looking more like 15 years. I guess having a good figure for annual rent increase could be a big part of this equation. I was assuming higher than 3%
July 16th, 2007 at 6:36 am
While I agree with most of your points, I have to say the example data is unrealistic, at least for the purpose of proving your point.
Generally speaking, you won’t find $425K houses renting for $1500. As your numbers show, that’s a hefty loss from what the landlord would likely be paying each month for mortgage, tax, and insurance. While landlords often do rent at a loss for the first few years (until they can raise the rent), a 40% loss is MUCH higher than normal. The housing market would have to have just tanked.
I just looked at some comparable rates in my area (Atlanta), and see that ~$1500 rent gets you a home that would sell for around $325K.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Comprar o Alquilar - La realidad economica (ingles)…
Un magnifico análisis (eso si en la lengua de chespir) que compara la rentabilidad económica del alquiler y la compra (eso si el resultado depende de datos como tipo de interés, evolución de la bolsa y evolución del mercado inmobiliario). "Ha…
July 16th, 2007 at 6:47 am
I hate it when PF Blogs let someone post about how renting isn’t such a bad deal. Renting sucks. How much do the renters benefit when property values rise? They don’t.
If you own, you have a stake in a market that consistently rises.
I purchased a condo for 62K, and continued to pay mortgage and taxes consistent with what I would have paid to rent it. Sold that condo 5 years later for 148,500.
Even if the market had not gone up, I would have walked away with thousands in equity.
If I had just rented it, I would have had walked away with nothing (except maybe my damage deposit).
Yeah owning requires some investment, and anyone can put together a graph showing how renters pay less, but the market changes and when it does, owners have an opportunity to benefit, whereas renters never do.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:50 am
I’d like to add that there is another aspect: money availability.
Life is uncertain, you might need extra cash someday, and if you need to sell your house for that, that’s not easy. And if you desperately need that money you surely won’t make the best possible deal.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:53 am
@Jeff, to make a fair comparison you need to estimate how well you’d be off if you took the money you’d save by renting and invested it. In fact, in some markets where property values are not consistently rising (and those bought in a bubble that is about to burst), you may come out ahead in the long run by renting and investing the difference. This is now common financial wisdom, there’s nothing controversial about it.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:57 am
I agree with Jeff. There is something to be said for those of us fortunate enough to have caught the real estate boom. We bought our first house in 1999 for $75,900 and sold it three years later for $152,000. We purchased another house in an area that had yet to catch up to the US market for $114,000 and it is currently on the market for $217,000. Finally, because of a job relocation we’ve purchased another house in a county with issues regarding the septic systems (laws are being hashed out and it’s slowed the real estate market considerably.) We bought this house for $185,000, we’ll put the new $13,000 septic system in to bring it up to the new codes. It assessed for $260,000.
All that to say that if we had rented, we would not have been able to bring our personal value up to a quarter of a million, plus the money we invested from the extra equity after the sale of our first home.
But…looking at our situation, I would have to consider that it is probably not the norm…
July 16th, 2007 at 6:57 am
This is also completely based on location as well. Maybe in seattle where an 1850sqft house is over $400,000, it works out to be a better deal to rent.
Where I live, where that same house would go for about $170,000, it makes a whole lot more sense to buy. Especially considering that renting that house is about the same figure quoted in the article.
I’m sure in some situations, it can make sense to rent. But, for the majority of people, I think buying is usually the better decision.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:58 am
I should also point out that the reason we didn’t rent initially (and we did look) is that in our area a 1 bedroom cost $800. Before utilities, our first home cost us about $700 a month, including taxes and insurance. If renting would have been cheaper, we probably would have rented.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Do most people live in overinflated markets though? I wonder. I agree you shouldn’t be buying now if the market is overinflated where you live, but is that the case everywhere?
This also assumes that the person is going to invest the difference, or even save the difference, which most people won’t. Worse, it assumes they will be a savvy investor, which requires a certain amount of dedication and interest in the stock market, which most normal people don’t have. Unless they pay a pro to do it (ie get a mutual fund), but that is going to eat into your 8% after inflation.
I agree with the underlying point though — Don’t think of your home as an investment.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:10 am
How much do the renters lose when property prices drop? Home buyers have a lot to lose when housing prices drop. It’s a double edged sword. Just because you made some money on your house doesn’t mean it’s universal or even normal. There’s a lot of people out there trapped in their overpriced homes, or worse, facing foreclosure because they thought the market would always go up and they got in over their heads.
My husband and I made 150k when we sold our house. Right now we are happy renters because it’s not always a good time to buy real estate. We paid off all of our debts and are enjoying accumulating money and having the flexibility that renting brings us.
Buying a place to live is not always a good thing, or a bad thing. I plan on buying again at some point, but like another poster mentioned, I’m buying a place to live, not an investment to live in.
I’m happy to see this post and would like to see more posts like it on this an other personal finance blogs. We need some common sense after several years of “Buy now or be priced out of the market forever - real estate never goes down!!!!!” hysteria.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Another aspect of this is whether you plan to continually “buy up” into bigger and bigger homes. My fiance and I are going to build a house in 2 years, but we don’t plan to ever move, so by the time we retire we will no longer have a house payment.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:35 am
very good points made, and certainly people should look long and hard at the actual cost of renting vs. buying. for us, buying only made us have an increase of $100 a month, so it was the wise move. in our area rents are were as high, or close to, buying costs (this may have changed in the past years).
and, although it’s rarely mentioned in financial circles… there is a very good feeling in knowing that you are going to be somewhere for a long time. renting is a very unsure way to live (such as in our case, where the owner decided to sell and we had to move someplace new). we don’t have to worry about that anymore.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:40 am
It’s true that one shouldn’t accept conventional wisdom on its face, and I’m glad that you’ve pointed this out. However, there are a few things that you don’t seem to have calculated for:
(1) The value of a home is likely to rise, often at a higher rate (over the long run) than the loan interest. It may not be as good a return as a quality mutual fund, but since you have to pay for housing anyhow…
(2) At some point in the future, you can be *done* paying your mortgage. That’s never true with rent. I’m not quite 30, and a big part of why my partner and I decided to buy a home is that our living costs will be significantly lower during retirement.
(3) Equity in a home can be leveraged to save money. Interest on the loan payment is tax-deductible (meaning most people will recover 20-30% of their interest payment in reduced tax). Home-equity loans are often lower-rate than other credit — I know several folks who’ve reduced high-interest student debt by using a home-equity loan. Regularly paying a mortgage is fantastic for one’s credit score, which can save money when one needs to get a vehicle loan or use consumer credit.
(4) Maybe not for everyone, but at least for me: owning a home has saved me money because I’d rather do something at home than go out. I’d rather spend an evening sitting on my deck with a glass of scotch than going to the local pub. I’d rather curl up and watch a movie (loudly! no neighbors share any walls, ceilings, or floors!) with friends ( For 4 people: $3 for the movie, pennies for the power, maybe $10 for snacks and drinks) than go out ($36 for the movie, another $30 if you have popcorn and a soda).
July 16th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Back in 2003, I made an offer on a house but it was not accepted as I was about 35K under the top bidder. Now assuming I had bid 535K instead, I would now be in a house valued at about 800K-850K. Reduce the difference with 4 years of ~3300/mo tax-adjusted non-equity payments so the net gain would be about 110K-160K. If I had to sell, chopping off 6% would drop total profit to 60K-110K.
Because my bid was not accepted, I did not have to liquidate my entire investment portfolio for the downpayment. And since that time, my portfolio has grown to an amount significantly larger than the theoretical home net worth. Even if my returns were 0% since then, I would match the house sale profit from just the buy-rent difference of 70K-80K over 4 years.
In the end, it comes down to buy/rent ratios. If the numbers don’t make sense, it’s silly to overspend to satisfy a psychological homeowning need.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:48 am
“Actually that’s not true. That figures in annual rent increases of something like 3-5%. I forget the exact figure I used, but it was factored in.”
Please explain. When I take out my calculator and add 5% to $1495, I get almost halfway to the mortgage payment in only 5 years.
In other words, if your rent goes up 5% a year, in 5 years you will be paying $1905 a month.
I have no idea whether rent goes up that much per year, but it seems reasonable considering back when I rented, it went up that much each of the 2 years I rented.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:59 am
I agree with a lot of what you said. Maybe it’s because I live in the expensive PNW, too. Every time I plug our info into a rent vs. buy calculator, we are always way ahead renting.
Someday we do hope to buy, but when we do, it won’t be for the purpose of investing. It will be because we want a permanent place to call home.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:59 am
This analysis is incomplete. It fails to take into account that the day you buy your house, while you have a debt of hundreds of thousands, you also have an investment of hundreds of thousands, if house prices are rising at a rate that is higher than the interest you are paying on your debt, then you have the potential to make gains far higher than by investing a few hundred dollars a month into equities.
I like to see some actual calculations based on a variety of scenarios, regarding inflation, interest rates, and houseing market performance.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:02 am
“For most people buying a home will result in their largest monthly bill (by far)”
Simply not true. Just because you can find exceptions or extreme scenarios, doesn’t mean it’s true for “most people”
The math works in this instance, but you wont find too many places where 425K houses rent for 1500. Where I live 1500 in rent gets you a house that would sell for 280-300K. I’m betting this is closer to the national norm than Seattle.
The math on rent vs. buy on that one looks quite different. The “conventional wisdom” about buying vs. renting came about before the bubble and overinflated home prices.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:05 am
@radiantmatrix: it’s true that at some point you’ll be done paying for your house, but the longer you stay in your house the older it gets and the more money you sink into repairs and renovations. Plus property taxes will keep going up. The annual property and school taxes on the house we just bought amount to almost as much as we were paying in rent every year on our apartment. So I think it’s worth keeping in mind (for future financial planning purposes) that even a paid-off house still costs money to live in.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:28 am
“even a paid-off house still costs money to live in.”
sure, but its nowhere near what your mortgage was or rent would be.
If my property taxes are $400 a month ($4800 a year, A LOT for my area), yeah I’m still paying money, but there is no way in hell I would find a place to rent for $400 a month that is in any way comparable to my house.
Even adding 1%/month maintenance to that, the person who has his mortgage paid off is the clear winner in my mind. I would rather have a $500/month housing bill into retirement than an additional $300K cash in the bank, which I don’t believe would be realized for most people anyway.
Its not exactly clear cut either way, I think.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:30 am
I think this article is somewhat misleading in terms of numbers.
Rent: - $1,495 ($1,495 coming out of pocket)
Mortgage: $2,093 (need to break it down to which goes into your pocket vs interest)
You also need to mention the possibility of rent hikes as well as tax breaks from the government for the first-time home buyer.
“In our hypothetical scenario, a renter who invested in the stock market with the $85,000 down payment plus the monthly difference between the $1,515 rent and the $2,690 home-buying costs would be over $500,000 better off after 30 years than the homebuyer, assuming 4% average appreciation.
”
Assuming that you always make money in stock market and at the same time, your house is situated in a very crappy area, then the above statement is true.
There are other misleading statements as well, but those two above should be enough for now.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:35 am
This is a great article. In my area rent is higher than mortgage payments so this doesn’t really apply. San Francisco or other high priced markets are different. Speaking of SF real estate, I just read an article about equity sharing where an investor covers the down payment so that someone who could not buy a house can now buy it. I’m trying to get more information and just posted about it here:
Equity sharing - Prosper for real estate
Has anyone been involved in an equity share deal? Pros/cons?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:38 am
@brad: “So I think it’s worth keeping in mind (for future financial planning purposes) that even a paid-off house still costs money to live in.”
That’s an excellent point, and one I wish I would have made more clear, but it doesn’t change my conclusion.
If property tax goes up in an area, so does rent. Besides which, I live in an area considered to be a high-property-tax county. Still, my property tax payments work out to about 5% of my total housing costs. (about 85% is the mortgage, and the remaining 10% is insurance, repairs, and so on).
It is true that there are repair and maintenance costs to consider, but they are quite a bit lower than most renters imagine. My home was built in 1953, and had brand-new windows installed before we purchased. It needs new siding and two new doors. Total cost: $3500. The siding will last at least 15 years, and the doors will last for 50 or more. The annualized cost of such things turns out to be very low.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:01 am
@Someguy
I agree with someguy. In Seattle I totally agree but it in reality it depends on area.
And also if you buy a property with an guranteed increase of 10% annually then you are well off buying and selling it every two years to take the profit tax free.
I am computer programmer earning about $150K and wife is a homemaker. We bought our house in Atlanta for $240K and now it is appraised for $265K. If we sell our property, after paying 6% real estate commision I would make fairly small profit.
We bought a home in Charlotte,North Carolina for $240K in December 2006 in a up coming area as we were planning to live there for ever.I got with all incentives, 0 down and interest only mortgage.
The property is appraised at $270 now wiithin few months.
Also we want to take advantage of interest only option on our taxes + appreciation after two years.
So we are sure to make atleast $40K in two years without any investment.
Again as Real Estate propfessional say ..Location, Location and Location helps in making a decision in buying or renting.
Again even we a pretty decent annual salary, we think by buying a home in good appreciation area will certianly help building assets soon.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:20 am
As some like buying for “stability”, i like renting for its flexiblity. Plus, I never have to fix anything or call anyone to fix things.
But I’m young and expect things to change someday. Once I plan to stay somewhere for an extended period of time, I will reconsider and run the numbers.
To those who say something to the effect of “one day, you won’t have to pay your mortgage” Very true, but if you were to invest the difference in the market, one day you could pay your rent strictlly off the interest of the money you “saved” by not buying. You say most people wouldn’t invest the difference, but I think a lot of people reading this would
But really there are a lot of individual and personal reasons to rent or buy, and as always, do what works for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html?ex=1184731200&en=3422a3f668518d5a&ei=5070
July 16th, 2007 at 9:27 am
I didn’t expect to see so many clueless commenters on this blog. Everybody that whines about The Tim not factoring appreciation would do well to note that he assumed 4% appreciation which is quite generous given that even the NAR is predicting price declines. And there’s always someone blathering about “leverage”. Well guess what, leverage does just as much harm as it can do good when home values are tanking. Just look at all of the sob stories in the press of people upside-down in the mortgages that are being kicked out of their houses. I can also vouch for the rent vs. buy numbers. I’ve looked up rentals on zillow and found some that were asking $1500 rent and had just been bought less than a year ago for around $450k.
I swear, some of you didn’t even read the article. Like “Where I live 1500 in rent gets you a house that would sell for 280-300K.” yeah, Tim mentioned that not areas are bubblicious.
“but the market changes and when it does, owners have an opportunity to benefit, whereas renters never do.” I think you mean “when the market goes up”. But isn’t that the psychology these days? Everyone assumes that houses can only ever appreciate.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
@ SomeGuyFromCA
buy a property with an guranteed increase of 10% annually then you are well off buying and selling it every two years to take the profit tax free
–There is no such thing as a guarantee in any form of investment except Treasury Bills, really.
–You must factor in transactions costs and risk. Since you took the IO option, you bet that you could sell the place for a profit after two plus years (avoid cap gains) and after RE commission to avoid getting hit by the ARM reset and/or balloon payment coming due.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I have seen several articles in ‘07 saying this (Buying a house is not such a sure thing investment after all). The analysis in these articles has been very engaging to me. My only question is: where were these articles during the boom years of ‘03, ‘04 and ‘05? For example, it seems all the articles you cited are from ‘07 as well.
I guess people just follow trends in establishing conventional wisdom.
Stock market bubble year (’96 - ‘99)? Stocks rule. Buy buy buy.
Stock market bust (’00-’01). Stocks are bad. Sell and wait.
Real estate bubble year (’02-’05)? Housing is great. Buy buy buy.
Real estate bust? Renting + Stock market is great.
Makes me think, just keep things simple: buy as boring ass Index fund. When you have a wife and kids, buy one house and live in it for 10+ years before moving. Keep putting spare change in the boring ass Index fund.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I’m in Seattle and I do think the numbers in the example make sense. Yes, you can rent a $400K property for even less than $1500. My roommate and I rent a 2 bedroom 2 bath condo in a very desireable location for $1250 a month. It would definitely sell for over $400K, probably closer to $450K. And as more condos are built in Seattle and bought by investors, renting condos will probably continue to be a deal.
Yes, I say probably. No, I don’t know what will happen. Yes, I wish I had bought a house in Seattle 10 years ago.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Well, I’ll put in my two cents on this issue. Please not that I’m a 24 year old with currently no outstanding debt (less credit card that is paid off every month).
I live in the bay area. I make as much as my parents make individually currently. Which for most people is a decent salary and allows me to live in the area with just watching my budget to an extent.
The average base price for a home is 600k plus. Meaning that to have a 20% down payment I need to have 120k. I have 20% of that 20% down payment right now. I have no desire to actually buy a house in this area for that very reason. For now, the little nest egg of housing down payment will just get to grow slowly. Course consider that at 5% interest that 120k would grow 6k per year as well…adding almost 500 dollars in interest every year…its quite a predicament.
I’ll be renting for a long time to come, as do all the people I know down here, because as a single person..you simply don’t make enough on the single salary. Even with eventually two and the friends making 200k+ a year, have no intention of buying a home.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:05 am
“Generally speaking, you won’t find $425K houses renting for $1500.”
I thought the same thing, being an investment property owner and landlord. We rent our properties to cover the mortgage, the real estate tax, insurance (high expense here in Fla.) and a small amount for repairs & upkeep. Our least expensive rental is at $1200 and that is for a house that we bought at $140,000.
The author may have used an example where somone bought a house pre-boom and while it would sell for $425,000 now they bought it much cheaper and therefore can rent it out for much cheaper. A better example would be two similar houses that were built and sold and the same time, one that is be resold and one that is a rental.
There are advantages to real property ownership and also to renting. I think a lot depends on individual circumstances and your life plan. If you rent you may have more cash available but you have to make sure you are doing smart things with the cash (investing vs. vacations). Real estate can be a very smart investment if you are buying at a good time (i.e. not at the peak) and you are buying the right real estate (i.e. less than the bank says you can afford) or you plan to keep the real estate for more than a few years.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:21 am
@Sam “The author may have used an example where someone bought a house pre-boom and while it would sell for $425,000 now they bought it much cheaper and therefore can rent it out for much cheaper. A better example would be two similar houses that were built and sold and the same time”
No that would not be a better example. Unfortunately for landlords (and upside-down flippers who have become landlords) rental prices aren’t set by adding up your monthly costs and maybe a slight profit. Rental costs are set by the market. As a renter I am going to find the most apt or house for my rental dollar. I don’t care if a landlord is paying more money to the bank and in taxes than he charges me in rent. This is blinding evident in large housing developments where there are hundreds of each model, exactly the same. Whoever sells or rents a house for the cheapest amount sets the market. Later renters and buyers will use that price as a the current market value (as a comp). So please realize that the fact that there are landlords out there with substantial equity who are able to undercut a landlord that bought in the last few years is a feature of this market, not an exception.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:42 am
It is worth noting that if you assume a 4% gain in value and a 6% mortgage rate on a 100k home with 20% down the interest and gains in property value are fairly close. 4k to 4.8k. If you look at it this way you only loose about $800 (0.8%) the first year. Your tax deduction could even leave you in the positive range depending on how much you spend on maintenance.
It isn’t necessarily a good investment, that depends on the market, but is one of the few ways to buy a home.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:57 am
While I can not say if this article is accurate in the global sense, i can say it is not accurate for the area I live in.
My own personal example:
I bought my condo at 156k - 1200 sqft, 2 bed, 2 bath
An apartment down the street, close to the same size - rents at 1200.
After my mortgage, association fees, and property taxes, i get pretty close to that 1200. in fact, its almost a wash.
However - I was able to rent that extra bedroom and bathroom - which is added income for me. I had a roommate paying 1/2 my living fees, and while only a small percentage may go into equity, at least it is.
I guess my point is that it is really area specific - and it seems silly to write an article saying one option is better than the other, when it would take specific analysis for each individual situation to determine which one is better.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Sam - Agreed, it is indeed realistic to find affordable rentals. Rental markets aren’t solely based on current purchase prices; there’s a rental market, and owners will charge whatever that market will sustain, often adjusted downward for good, long-term tenants and low cost-of-ownership, such as when the property was purchased long ago or is one of a set among which costs and rents are distributed.
Another point that is often overlooked is that yes, rents do go up sooner or later, just like incomes sometimes get interrupted or go down (something many new homeowners seem to believe won’t happen to them), but in such situations, renters generally have the option to move, with relative ease, to another rental that’s within their means.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Something that hasn’t been touched on by anyone is changing personal circumstances. Yes, it’s important to take into account the housing market, and I write this fully admitting that I bought at an advantageous time. However, your house is more than an investment, it is your home, and it is a hedge not only against inflation, but against other personal circumstances.
I bought a house right out of college, and many of my friends thought I was nuts. People told me a one bedroom was a “bad investment” because people who had or wanted kids would never consider buying it. However, I could afford it, it was not much more than rent-control at the time, and it was in an area I felt was undervalued. I also figured that it would allow me to have a “base” in a desirable area, while having the ability to travel and explore.
My health has been declining for years, in spite of my youth. I am no longer able to work full time, or even in a part time job that requires regular hours. Meanwhile, rents here have increased far beyond my ability to pay, and home prices are through the roof. I was smart enough to get a fixed rate mortgage and am paying less (yes, including maint., prop tax, and ins.) than my poorest friends pay for rent. We grow some of our food, to the extent we are able, and I am frugal beyond measure. More importantly, we have a fantastic community, and as we are all here longer and longer, we are increasingly tight-knit. Some of our best friends are our neighbors. This is priceless.
I don’t know what I would do as the same “just out of school” kid in this market, but I would encourage anyone weighing these questions to factor in the intangibles and the possibility that they will not be able earn as much and for as long as they do now.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Chiming in from the SF bay area. It is not uncommon here to find houses valued at $800K renting for $1700. So most of the times it doesn’t make sense to buy.
On the other hand, friends from Baltimore have a very different story, renting for $1200 vs buying $250-300
When you need to make a big decision (such as buying a house) you better be informed. Like others said, sometimes investing is not the only goal when buying a house.
Check prices for the area (including rent):
http://www.city-data.com/
http://www.rentometer.com/
http://www.zillow.com/
http://www.housingtracker.net/
For example, you can check out San Francisco and find median home prices at $726K (in 2005) and median rents at $1068 (in 2005). (Disclaimer, you probably want to compare similar houses, this just gives you a trend)
http://www.city-data.com/housing/houses-San-Francisco-California.html
Contrast that with Baltimore, MD.
http://www.city-data.com/housing/houses-Baltimore-Maryland.html
Median home price, $103K, median rent, $585 (in 2005).
So, the price in SF for a house is almost 8 times more than Baltimore. But rent is only 2 times more??
So just because it might make sense to buy in one place it doesn’t translate to buying in the other. (or renting, etc).
Check the market, check were you live.
Me, I live in the SF bay area, so I rent.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
@John
Stock market bubble year (’80 - ‘86)? Stocks rule. Buy buy buy.
Stock market bust (’86-’87). Stocks are bad. Sell and wait.
Real estate bubble year (’85-’89)? Housing is great. Buy buy buy.
Real estate bust years (’90-’95)
Study history, it does repeat itself.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Just to be exact, then price increase is for the house is actually 7 (I guess I can’t round), and the rent increase is 1.83.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I am astounded at how many people here are missing the point of the article.
The point is this. Use a model like the one ‘The Tim’ used to decide *quantitatively* which is best. If you don’t like the model ‘The Tim’ used, make your own. (I happen to think his model is pretty accurate)
Yes, I am sure some of you live in areas which a $150K house rents for $1200. Great. You should probably buy. In Seattle, one ends up renting a $470K house for $1500/month. Buying right now here would be a terrible choice. The only way to know for sure is to run the numbers.
Again, the point here is to throw out all the brain-dead arguments Realtors like to spew. Run the numbers and see for yourself. They usually don’t lie.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:46 am
In the short term resnting may be cheaper, but in the long run owning has to be.
All else being equal, when you rent you’re paying the mortgage, utilities, repairs, etc… AND the landlord is making a profit. It’s hard to see how that can be cheaper than paying for all those things yourself and not having to let someone make a profit.
Of course the reality is a lot more complex than that and there are many, many other factors to consider.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Ok, might as well put in my 2.5 cents as well.
I’m probably one of the lucky ones, in that I bought my house just out of college for $195k in southern California in 1999. I had almost no down payment, and swung the mortgage (about $1100 on a 30 year) by renting out two rooms to college buddies for a couple of years. At the time i had about $13k in the bank from an inheritance from my grandmother. My thoughts on this was fix my cost of living, get a tax shelter, a little extra income and have some equity to buy a home when I got married. My mom of course said I should wait until I got married before buying a house (but then, she also said I shouldn’t go into computers but be a doctor instead).
It is now 8 years later and I’m still in the same house, but with a wife and a 3 year old. I’m now watching the houses selling in my neighborhood for about $650k. Rent vs. own? I carefully plotted out my expenses and found that around 5 or 6 years was the break even point for me, so I’m in bonus time (I actually probably broker even about 2 years into it). At this point it would cost me more to rent than it does to live where I do. And I think that’s one of the items this article doesn’t address well.
If you move from place to place every two years, rent rent rent! if you buy, expect to be there about 7 years to break even, and do whatever you can to get into a home, 1% down loans are actually pretty nice because of leverage, put $5,000 down on a $500k home and have it go up 5%, and you’ve made $25k (500%). And you never want to have too much equity in your house if you’re really convinced it’s going to be an investment.
And ultimately I view a house as a place to live that’s how I view buying a house - it’s an expense, not an investment, and when I do my financial planning, the house equity doesn’t factor into my overall plan because it isn’t something I can readily rely on or even want to depend on (much like social security) when determining my purchasing power.
I’ve also been putting a little bit each month into 401ks, roth ira, a 529 plan, and since i teach part time a 457b and anything left over for the month goes into an investment brokerage account. Average 5 year returns for these accounts has been something like 23% annualized.
I haven’t done the math yet, but let’s figure i could have put another 1000 a month into investments instead of the house…and let’s say for calculation sake that we have an annualized return of 25%
$1000 X 12 months is $12,000 X 25% = 15,000
After 8 years I would have $273,049 in the account following this rather optimistic formula.
Now let’s look at the house, say I really need to get out of it so list at $550k, sell and pay closing costs around 44k (8% of the value since i’m pessimistic) for an in hand of 506k, subtract the current loan of 170k, for a total walk away of around 336k
So in this scenario, as a home owner right now, I’m still up 63k 8 years into living there (it’s the power of leverage).
Now, 20 years out, following this same formula, i would have 3,979,528.87 in my investment account and 31,985,996.39 in 30 years (power of compound interest)
Bottom line, buy the house because you want to live in it, not because it’s an investment. And only buy if you’re planning on sticking around in the neighborhood for 5 years or more. And if you’ve convinced yourself it’s an investment, you’ll want to flip it about every ten years and buy another property for almost nothing down in order to take advantage of leverage (Tax laws allow you to take no capital gains if you’ve lived there 2 of the 5 years you’ve owned the property).
AND whatever you do, never, ever, ever, ever put down 20% if you can get away with no money down…use the bank’s money to help you grow rich through leverage.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:58 am
If you get into a fixed rate mortgage and put down 20% to avoid mortgage interest, or do an 80/10/10 to avoid mortgage interest, over time it will make more sense to buy. Why? Because over time you will indeed own the home, your mortgage is fixed (you property taxes and insurance will go up though), and over time you will be paying more % in principal than interest.
Also don’t forget to deduct the true cost of the interest and property taxes by the tax deduction you get to take (effectively at your tax rate).
Through time your rent will go up, especially in Seattle.
We have owned this house for almost 5 years here in Seattle (by UVillage) and are now looking at a scenario where we are selling it, moving to Denver, and buying a house there for CASH.
Couldn’t have done that if I had been renting for the last 5 years.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Buying a home has been one the smartest financial decisions I’ve made, but I know the market is different today.
When I bought in ‘94 my payment and expenses were less than the rent I paid previously. The home nearly tripled in value by the time I sold it. But back then, in the Mpls/St. Paul market you could buy a decent home for about 70K. Today a starter home is 250K. It’s a whole different ballgame.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I think the problem you have with the idea that renting might be better is that you bought at the right time, when buying was the better option.
@Tim, you’re saying you get 23% return annually? on your investments?
If that were the case, why not sell your house (you said you would make $336K right?), then put that money at 23%, that would make you about 77K a year in interest alone.
Your house is not going to appreciate at 23% no matter what. (I’m actually doubtful that your investments will continue at 23% for a long time, but who knows, maybe you’re good with stocks)
Right now you’re paying $1100. The price of your house might be going up, but not by a lot this year, say 2%. (actually declining on some markets, so it’s losing money).
Why not sell the house, invest the money and save the interests? How much more in rent would you have to pay to rent your house?
Lets say it’s 50% more, so you would need $1600.
On a conservative strategy, say a CD you make 5%, so your 336K in cash would make you about 17K in interest. Take the extra 6K you need for rent from that and you made 11K.
(not to mention that if you can get 23% that will make you 77K)
At 2% a year appreciation, your house increases 11K in value (you don’t really make that because you’ll have to pay the transaction fee if you sell).
So, under this rent-pessimistic scenario you’re actually almost equal in terms of buy vs rent.
Just because it was the right time to buy _then_ does not mean it’s the right time to buy _now_.
Can a money investment make you more money that the housing market? It depends on the interests and it depends on the rent/price ratio.
@finance girl, no, it doesn’t always make sense to buy. Because the money you are paying in interest is money you are losing. And even though in time you will own a home, in the other option in time you will have a big bank account in cash.
In your example, once again, you bought at the _right time_, that time is not now.
(like it’s been mentioned before, it depends on the area)
The saying about home loans:
When you rent, you rent a house. When you buy, you rent money to buy a house.
The question is, which one makes more financial sense?
And the answer is, it depends. There is no general answer.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
[...] Rich Slowly: Renting vs. Buying: The Realities of Home-Ownership Wall Street Journal: Your Home Isn’t the Nest Egg That You May Think It Is New York Times: A Word [...]
July 16th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
In 1997 I invested in a tech company, two years later I sold for a 600x return on my initial investment (I now pay my rent and nearly all living expenses from interest on a money market fund). Does this mean I would argue that everyone should invest in tech stocks right now, of course not. Who cares about your past experience, this article is meant as a generalization for millions of people in many different situations.
PS The level of understanding of basic household finance of some of the posters here is truly frightening.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I’m a Seattleite as well. The thing that strikes me about this story is that it’s based on “anecdata”–particularly that rental figure. That’s the big red flag everyone’s missing.
Go to the Seattle Times web site, look in their rental listings, and as of five minutes ago the 3 bedroom houses listed for rent in North Seattle ranged from $1200/month to $4000/month. The big spread is attributable to location, location, location. Suffice to say that $1500/month is on the low end of the scale and invoking that as a typical rental figure is misleading.
Last Saturday there was a story in the Seattle Times (linked to my name) saying that rents for apartments in the metro area had jumped by 9% since last year–north Seattle by 11%!–and that vacancies all over are really low as population continues to increase. IOW, expect rents to continue to rise.
Baddriver up at #40 may say that he doesn’t care if landlords don’t make a profit. That may be true, but you can bet your butt that the landlords do care–and the ones that stay in the red for too long don’t continue to be landlords. All this by way of saying that the reason houses rent for lower than “market value” is that the landlord must have far lower expenses, i.e., probably bought when housing prices were much much lower. In Seattle 10 or 15 years ago would do it. (And that the landlord is a relatively nice guy or gal who isn’t out to get every last dollar.)
If the rental property isn’t in the black and the owner has to sell, you can bet your bottom dollar that the renter will not continue to enjoy the below-market rents when a new owner takes over.
Happened at our (3 br, 1.5 ba) house. The prior residents rented from a relative for $600/month…then their relative died, and willed the place to someone else, who sold it. We bought it and now our PITI is about $1750/month. We rent out the basement alone for almost as much as the prior rent.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Two things:
1.) If you buy, you put all your eggs into one basket. Wait, you borrowed money for “leverage”. So you also get into debt to put even more eggs into this one basket called “real estate”. Bad.
2.) You can’t fucking stand your boss and would like to quit and restart somewhere else. Wait! You have this house that you own 30% of. And that mortgage. Selling is a big pain. Well, I guess you’d better put up with your boss for a decade longer. I’ve seen this inflexibility because of home ownership around me. Bad.
One more thing:
If I can’t stand my apartment anymore, I move. I have quite some free cash flow that I can put into the bank. It even pays me interest! There might be situations when home ownership improves quality of life, like when you have a family and a nice garden and stuff, but for singles or dinks, it’s just plain stupid to buy.
My $0.02. BTW, I live in a nice apartment for €375 all inclusive in Berlin.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
After reading the article and the comments so far, I see one additional point that no one has made yet. You talk about having $85k in the bank to make the 20% down payment, but not everyone has that kind of money available to them. We sure didn’t when we bought our first house. I used my VA eligibility to get a house for zero down. I had to come up with a small amount (pre-paid interest, closing costs, etc. - about $2k, IIRC), but that was it. We got a 3 BR house in San Diego for roughly the same cost as the rent we were paying on a 2 BR condo (once you figure the tax break on the mortgage payment). Sure, our incidental costs rose slightly, but not significantly. When it came time to move to a bigger house, we had built up significant equity. That equity allowed us to move to a house that was almost twice the size (2000 sq. feet vs. 1200 sq. feet). We never would have accumulated that amount through just savings.
In a high rent area like southern California, it would have taken us years to save up a 20% down payment. Debt is not always bad - it can work as a multiplier for your financial leverage, and at least when buying a house, you’ll probably get a return - better than you’ll ever see on an expensive car!
July 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
@californian - common misconception about home ownership there, although I think maybe your statement about your rent the money to buy the house is right on.
The longer you own a home, the less leverage you have. There is a break even point where the equity overcomes the fees, but then when you have too much equity in the home, it just sits there earning 2%.
Lets take your 2% scenario ( although in truth, i think real estate averages something more like 5-10% )
if i buy a 600k home for cash, i get 2% return on my investment.
if i put 10% down, that 2% appreciation now becomes 20% on my initial investment - which beats out the 8% I’d have to pay on a 30 year, netting me 12% return.
if i put 1% down, that 2% appreciation now becomes 200% return, making me 192% in the first year.
These are all first year scenarios, and as you own the home and have additional costs the return goes down because the equity changes the leverage values.
Think of the money you put at risk vs. the expected return. Using the bank’s money, you can magnify the work done by the initial investment.
Because of fees, taxes, and closing costs though, generally “flipping” a house is a bad idea in 2 years. However, if you work this formula out over 8 years, you can see a pretty solid return. Eventually, in the next two years I will be selling my home, but I’ll look to put 1% or 2% down on my next home, put the rest into stocks and other investments, and let the leverage genie work for me.
The reason I don’t do this with 10 houses, is of course there is too much risk in renters, depreciation, etc. but as long as I’m thinking “I could live in this house forever”, I’m protected against the falling market because I can always just stay put and be happy with whatever my current mortgage is at the time.
(and yes, this stock market ride has to end sometime soon, but 5 years of 23%.. not too bad, i’m forcasting my retirement fund to grow at 10% annually and planning for that in all my financial forcasts when i retire in 35 years or so)
July 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Hey fubek - where in Berlin? When I lived there (Charlottenburg, 87-90, within sight of the Funkturm) we lived in a nice 2 BR place for about 2000 DM/month - depending on the exchange rate that would be about $1000 to $1200 dollars. (Every 1 pfennig change in the exchange rate changed my rent by about $5 US) With the Wall down and the resultant building boom, everything I’ve read said that housing costs went up steeply in Berlin.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
An advantage to a fixed-rate mortgage is that the payment stays the same. This is why my parents had a $112 mortgage payment in the early 90s - they’d bought their house in Shoreline in 1964.
$112 did not rent a 2-brdm house or apartment then in the 80s or 90s. But it paid the mortgage.
Of course, this also assumes a fixed-rate mortgage.
Personally, though, I think that a house you live in derives its value from the fact that you live in it. You can’t live in a mutual fund. You also have more control. I’m not going to get an eviction notice because someone else wants to rebalance their portfolio or because their kid needs a place to live. Yes, earthquakes and windstorms still happen - but some of the chaos is reduced.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Regarding JenK’s comment: I remember a coworker once announcing that he had made his last mortgage payment in the same range as your parent’s amount - $200 or so. Several of us made comments about how we’d like to have that payment for ourselves. He pointed out that it was just as large a percent of his take home 30 years ago as our payments were today. He also pointed out that he now had kids in college, so he had other expenses to soak up his cash, while we “youngsters” still had a while to go before worrying about tuition for our kids. It’s all relative!
July 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
As a fellow Seattelite, I can attest to these numbers…. I’ve been watching house prices for a while, and the ‘anecdata’ provided really is accurate. The house I live in was purchased 2 years ago for $330K, split into two living spaces (1br daylight basement - still being renovated, 2.5br main floor w/ garage), and we rent the 2.5br for $1400 (includes elec/water/sewage/trash). The house has a lot of windows and is poorly insulated, so average utilities are probably $300-$400/month.
Our landlord is paying money out-of-pocket on the property currently, and even when she gets the bottom floor renovated and renting, it’ll still take her years to make up the cost of lost rent AND the cost of renovation. The market is predicted to bust within the next 5 years (the amount of growth has been astronomical, but they expect that there will be a tech-worker-migration to outlying towns, as telecommuting becomes more common).
The numbers honestly work here… This isn’t anecdotal, our landlord is losing money, and the only way she could make money was to split the house into two apartments.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Angie,
There is nothing anecdotal about taking the home one rents, plugging it into Zillow, computing PITI + maintenance, and coming up with an ‘ownership premium’. It would cost me 3x what I pay in rent to own the house I live in. Yes Zillow is probably not perfect, but looking at what has sold around me, it is pretty accurate.
I fully believe every person on this blog who states “My home was my best investment ever”. I assure you that the ownership premium was not 3x when they purchased their homes though.
As far as rents rising, I just don’t see it. The reason may be that I choose to rent from private landlords, not the corporations which are used for those rent surveys touted by MSM reporters like Lizzie Rhodes.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
wreckingbull, with all due respect, that’s still anecdotal.
This is not to say I don’t believe you. My family couldn’t afford what Zillow says our house is worth, either. Prices are still rising fast in Seattle. Supply, meet demand.
So, 15 years from now, you’ll still need someplace to live. Do you think your rent will still be so proportionately low? What do you think the average crackerbox in Seattle will sell for?
I lived on the SF Peninsula in the late 80s/early 90s when plain-jane old one-story houses sold for the shocking price of $250K. Now you couldn’t look at those same places for $800K or better. Prices for middlin’ houses up the penininsula in the city limits for San Francisco jumped the shark two generations before that; Manhattan a few generations before that; urban centers in Europe, a few hundred years before that.
This is not the first time that population pressures have put real estate prices out of reach of average people.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
“So, 15 years from now, you’ll still need someplace to live. Do you think your rent will still be so proportionately low?”
No. With easy credit drying up, King County inventory at nearly an all-time record, rising interest rates, and a nasty wave of ARM resets coming on a huge chunk of already-unaffordable loans, I am certain I will own again when the ownership premium is reasonable. For now, I am happy to have found a greater fool.
“This is not the first time that population pressures have put real estate prices out of reach of average people.”
Really?
http://tinyurl.com/35r7qm
July 16th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I think many people have made up their minds on this subject. I personally rent, and that is fine with me.
But something that I do not think has been mentioned here yet is what happens if you can’t stand the other person that is paying for the house with you?
Divorce is common enough that it will start to happen; people will have to sell their houses at a loss or live with the person that can’t stand b/c they cannot pay the mortgage alone.
Many people do not admit to having financial troubles until they cannot hide it anymore. I suspect many of us know these people. It just might take a while for it to become apparent.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
i think a key argument for this post is affordability… for those that are FORTUNATE (!!) enough to buy their own homes - or own properties - it is a good deal if you can get in on the ground floor and buy something.
but for instance, in the market that I live in right now, it is one of the highest growing real estate markets in canada, and percentage wise one of the most overinflated markets in north america. my parent’s modest 3 bedroom bungalow went from approximately 100K in 2004/2005 to now where they could sell it probably for 400K. if i would have bought back then, i would have made money. but now? its out of my reach. is renting in this market so bad? no, cause i can’t afford to buy! so renting is fine!
for instance, a one bedroom CONDO - just a condo - is about $300K average price for a downtown-ish location. there is no way, on my $50k salary with $40k in debt that I can buy that place. even if I could with help for a downpayment, i would still have HUGE payments every month. it is much better that I pay off my debt and then later on look at buying something.
at least an article like this is a bit of fodder for me to throw back at all those people asking me why i don’t buy a place.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
[...] finance blog Get Rich Slowly (as apposed to Get Rich Quickly! as many websites promise) titled Renting vs. Buying: The Realities of Home-Ownership which does a good job comparing the real costs of renting versus buying a home. This one is [...]
July 16th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
As a Seattlite who JUST finished looking for a new lease (for exactly the reasons that Tim posted about), I think I can add some more data points to this thread.
There are a lot of owners who are engaging in self-justifying math, comparing counterfactuals, etc etc. Basically, the entire argument relies on recency. Try the same argument in a falling market (real estate roughly keeps up with inflation, long term. Look it up. And think of how you would feel if your real investments performed that poorly).
As for the pacific northwest rental scene — don’t believe everything you read, either in the real-estate-cheerleading regional newspapers, nor in ads from landlords who seem to be trying out the “big rent increases!” line in their postings. We decided on a lease from four final choices, *all* of whom negotiated down on price by between 3-5% at a monthly rate. I’d guess that if anything, rents jumped by about the rate of inflation. Bought gas or building materials lately?
My point is, from the market in used/new houses, to apartments, you gotta push back in order to arrive at the real price. 7/10 of the landlords I interviewed were soft on price.
Oh, also, anyone who thinks that real estate will continue to appreciate the way it did over the most recent cycle is deluding themselves. There are going to be some people who get burned out there — be careful!
July 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Thanks for all the feedback everybody. I apologize that I have been unable to respond throughout the day. I would however like to address a few of the things that have been brought up here.
A number of people have said things along the lines of: “Your numbers don’t make any sense. Where I live, houses that rent for $1,500 are much cheaper than $425,000.” or “your article is not accurate where I live.” As I said near the end of the post, there are plenty of housing markets, especially those away from the coasts, where the numbers do work out in favor of buying. If that’s the case for you, great! I’m not attempting to show that renting is always better than buying, everywhere. I am just trying to get people to do the critical thinking for themselves, rather than simply believing the hype that buying real estate is always a better way to spend your money than renting.
There are also a few people making comments similar to: “But I bought a house five years ago, and now it’s worth three times what I paid. Clearly buying is better.” I would think that it would be obvious the savvy readers of Get Rich Slowly, but past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. You’re taking the best five years of performance in the history of real estate and using it as an example for why buying is better? Sorry, but that makes no sense.
In a normal market, buying usually works out to be the better financial choice over time periods longer than 5-10 years. However, for much of the country, the current real estate market is anything but normal. Potential homebuyers should consider their own specific circumstances carefully before deciding to buy. That’s all I’m saying.
Also, some people are repeating the old argument that “housing costs are fixed if you buy, but rent always goes up.” First off, unless you live in California, property taxes are always increasing. Furthermore, maintenance and insurance also increase with time. Granted, the increase in these expenses will not equal the increase in rent, but they are by no means fixed, and are unavoidable for the homeowner. However, I think that SJean in comment #39 makes an excellent point: “if you were to invest the difference in the market, one day you could pay your rent strictly off the interest of the money you “saved” by not buying.”
Lastly, I’d like to address those of you that are bringing the “intangibles” into the conversation. I agree that buying has some distinct non-financial advantages, such as stability, customizability, and even pride. Renting also has its own advantages: flexibility and ease of use (call the landlord if something breaks). This article was not intended to address these aspects of the debate. I intentionally kept the scope as narrow as possible, focusing strictly on the financial aspects of each.
I will respond to a few individual comments below.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Angie @ 56 said:
Indeed Angie, $1,500 per month may be on the low end of the scale for rent on a 3-bedroom house. However, I would argue that $425,000 is also on the low end of the scale for the purchase price of a 3-bedroom house (it is well below the June King County median SFH price of $470,000). As much as possible, I selected a rental and for sale home that were very similar, including in their location.
Run the numbers for just about any part of the Seattle area, with comparable houses or condos/apartments in similar locations, and you’ll find very similar ratios, I guarantee it.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
David Hunter @ 6 said:
David, I recommend you read the CNNMoney article linked at the bottom of the post: Stocks vs. Real Estate. It’s a great comparison of the investment benefits of each, and definitely takes into account the leverage aspect.
From the article:
July 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Vancouver (BC) is in a similar predicament. I’d estimate that larger 2-bedroom condos (1000 sq ft) in my neighbourhood sell for about $560k. When you add $300 for strata fees and $100 for maintenance, you’re paying $3000 a month. But they only rent for $1800. That’s a difference of $1200 a month.
Still, $670+ of that goes to equity. So the difference is more like $530 per month. (You can’t deduct interest on a personal mortgage in Canada.) Perhaps you could invest your $140k downpayment at 5% and make $7k a year. But you’d be taxed on that at up to 40%. So it’s really worth $4200 a year or $350 per month. Between the investment and the “savings” from renting, the renter appears to be ahead by $880 a month. But if the property increases at 1.6% per year, you’ll be on par with renting. In the short-term, this is risky, as there would be a cost if you decided to sell and the market might drop. But, over the long haul, you’ll do better by owning, especially since rent will increase over time.
However, is now a good time to buy in markets where there’s such a huge difference between renting and buying? Not if you’re planning to move in fewer than 10 years. You could be caught upside-down on your mortgage if you need to sell. But if you’re selling to buy something more expensive, it will have dropped too. If you’re staying in the same market, you’re okay. You may choke if the property values drop just after you buy, though.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
icup @ 23 said:
Now that I’ve had time to go back to my spreadsheets, I’m pretty sure I was using 3% per year rent increases. That’s actually somewhat generous for Seattle, where the average yearly increase since 1990 has been closer to 2.6% (source).
Going by that figure, after 20 years of 3% increases, rent+insurance will be $2,657 per month. However, the homebuyer’s taxes, insurance, and maintenance are all increasing as well. Assuming that their insurance and maintenance costs also increase at 3% per year, and that their tax assessments lag the value of their property by three years, their monthly costs are $3,686. Only $1,085 of that is principal, the remaining $2,601 is “thrown away.”
By that time, the renter has thrown away a grand total of $488,500, while the buyer has thrown away $607,500. Download the spreadsheet at Priced Out Forever and see the numbers for yourself. Or for a more user-friendly method (which results in very similar results, try the New York Times calculator.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Lastly, thanks to everyone who expressed kind words of appreciation regarding this post. I did my best to make it relevant to this site, and as practical and useful as possible. I’m glad that many of you found it to be of value.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:01 am
i used to live in Vancouver, and a big difference between there and calgary is that Vancouver has a rent cap, where as Calgary doesn’t - so in Van, if you are teetering between renting and buying you are almost better off renting b/c the costs *will* stay relatively fixed. In Calgary, we’ve seen rents jump as high as 200%, which makes the push to buy even greater…. thus why here renting a house is a heckuva lot cheaper than buying a condo… if you are willing to live outside of downtown, you can find a 4 bedroom townhouse for the same price as a one bedroom in the d.t. area.
But yup, Vancouver is a special cat. I’m interested to see what happens after the Olympics - if the market crashes or continues to go up.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:19 am
One thing that everyone is ignoring here is that the vast, vast majority of people don’t buy and stay put, they buy and then move within a few years. And often that move will be to a bigger, more expensive house.
Now, the folks moving will often have more money coming in as they mature in their careers, but every time you move, assuming you get conventional loans, that “we no have to pay our mortgage” clock resets.
I’m 40. We’re building our “final” house here. But a 30 year loan means that I won’t get to enjoy that “no mortgage” thing (assuming no extra towards principal) until I’m 70…assuming a fat tub of lard like me makes it to that age.
I bought my first house in 1996 for 175K, and sold it in 2000 for 250K. Pretty nice, eh? This was a 2/1 in north Seattle. But keep in mind that the guy I bought it from paid $170K in 1989 for it. I made a nice sum in four years due to the huge run-up in Seattle real estate, but he essentially made nothing (and accounting for inflation and interest, lost a bunch of bux). It can go either way. Making money on a house is not a given.
Imagine tomorrow Microsoft says “you know, it’s just too darn expensive to operate here in greater Seattle, we’re moving our headquarters to the Ozarks.” Unlikely but certainly not unheard of…and there go 50,000 high paid jobs. Think your McMansion on the plateau is going to be appreciating at 10% a year then?
I like owning a house…it allows me a lot of freedom to do things I enjoy. But I don’t have many illusions it’s a slam-dunk investment strategy or even the smartest use of our money. But it makes me happier than renting.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:26 am
[...] Renting vs. Buying: The Realities of Home-Ownership It’s common knowledge that buying a home is a better financial move than renting. After all, you’re building equity instead of throwing away your money, right? Well, maybe not quite… Rather than assuming the “common knowledge” on this subject is accurate, let’s take a look for ourselves at some of the financial differences between renting and home-buying. [...]
July 17th, 2007 at 9:47 am
You bring up some good points, and I agree that its absolutely worthwhile to consider renting instead of buying. However, one thing that gets lost in your monthly renting v. buying cost calculation is compensation for the fact that you do indeed recoop some of the money that you pay for the mortgage as you build equity, leading up to the point when you sell the house. Even if you only get back half of what you’ve paid into the mortgage over time (so, say $1000 for every $2000 you make in mortgage payments), that would bring the total monthly “expense” of owning a home within a $100 range of renting. (That is the $2690 - $1000, with the latter figure being the overall equity in the home.)
To be fair, that still makes owning a home a more expensive proposition. But some of us take joy in being able to make decisions about the house, such as what color to paint our walls, where to put a garden, or whether to put in Astroturf. So, in addition to the financial benefits, some people get an emotional benefit out of owning a home. (Ok, me. I’m addicted to HGTV. Consequently, this probably makes owning a home even more expensive… but oh so rewarding.) :o)
Thanks, again.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:53 am
This scenario works for Seattle, and most of the over-inflated West Coast real estate market. I lived in Portland for seven years. If you are willing to consider other parts of the country, things start looking affordable pretty quickly. Here’s a good starting point:
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/103226/Most-Affordable-Towns
July 17th, 2007 at 10:10 am
@ Roger (no. 78)
Can’t you get mortgages that last for 22 years in the States?
Over here, you can get a mortgage of any length between 10 and 35 years (depending on the lender).
July 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
@tim 59
Well, it’s true that average appreciation is not 2%, it depends on the area. I don’t have official data for all of time, but I do for the last 27 years. The highest change is in New England, 7% with the lowest change in “West South Central” at 3%.
http://www.ofheo.gov/
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
Their report has a lot of data, like how California appreciation was 114% for 2001-2007 (13% anual) and how it was -15% between 1991 and 1996.
The first few pages of the report are probably a good overview.
The report basically shows that the last 5 years have been phenomenal. However, prices are not climbing like before, and some areas are having “corrections”. Page 30 lists the top metro areas with falling prices over the last year.
(whadya know, 60% in California)
Top is Punta Gorda, FL, with -4.57%, second is Sacramento, CA with -4.41%.
So, my point is that over the long run you’ll get somewhere between 3-6, but on the short run it’ll be low.
Also, even though you can make money over the whole loan you’re also paying interest over the whole loan, not to mention the fees. So, if your loan is at 5% and your house doesn’t go up at some reasonable rate you’re not making money. That 2% increase is not going to help you a lot, specially if you put 0% down and have to pay the fees (so you actually lost money).
But I admit, 1 year investments is not what houses were made for (in this market).
Cheers
July 17th, 2007 at 10:53 am
[...] vs Renting - Now that I am about to close on a house I am reading all sorts of articles about how buying is not necessarily better than renting. WTF? Anyway the title link is a great tool [...]
July 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
what about in the even longer term? say over a 40 year period where the last 10 years (assuming a 30 year mortgage) you no longer have that mortgage and you can then take that money and invest it while the person who is renting still has to pay the rent? the home owner would surely have a significant advantage at this point.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I already bought a home several years ago but there are situations where RENTING is indeed better. Consider this anecdote about the 2006 Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Edmund S. Phelps:
(From NYTimes)
July 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
[...] rent which goes toward making somebody else rich. But according to Tim Ellis in a guest post on the Get Rich Slowly blog, that may not be quite the [...]
July 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
John provided a quote from the winner of the 2006 Nobel prize in Economics about the low cost of renting their apartment in New York City. It would only be fair to report that NYC is rent-controlled, and since this couple has lived in the same place for 32 years, I think that would make a significant difference in the costs. I am guessing, but I would think that if you wanted to start a new lease on a 3BR apartment overlooking Central Park today, the rent payment would be more than enough to pay for ahouse almost anywhere else in the country. Can any New Yorkers confirm my guess?
July 17th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Andrea said:
“Perhaps you could invest your $140k downpayment at 5% and make $7k a year. But you’d be taxed on that at up to 40%. So it’s really worth $4200 a year or $350 per month.”
Even if you are only able to make a 5% return on your 140k investment you seem to have forgotten about compound interest and the fact that in Canada you are not taxed on investment income until the investment is sold. If you have an ounce of common sense you would know that it is fairly easy to avoid being taxed at the 40% bracket on your investments in Canada.
I hope you aren’t a financial consultant.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Jordan, the answer to your question is an emphatic no. The way compounding returns work, money invested early is worth more than money invested later in life by a huge factor.
Let’s do a really simple example. Say the difference between buying and renting was 10K and you put 1 years worth into the stock market. Then you buy a house with a 30 year mortgage. After 30 years, your house is paid off and you pick up investing again with your annual 20K mortgage payments in a separate account. It would take 30 more years of contributions to catch up to the initial 10K amount! That’s because at 10% returns, 10K grew to 191K after 31 years and the freed up 20K would just barely match the pre-house portfolio growth. In fact, just another 5% increase (1 more month of renting) and the post-house contributions will never catch up.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Dave, a new lease on a NYC apartment now would definitely be more than most people would pay for a house in various parts of the country. However, that’s immaterial — the only important factor is that a new lease would STILL be cheaper than what it would cost to buy a place in NYC by a lot.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:13 am
MossySF - agreed, both buying or leasing now would be significantly more expensive than it was 32 years ago. What I was attempting to point out though, was that, because this couple had been able to lock in the price of their housing 32 years ago, the cost is quite reasonable in today’s terms. However, what would have happened if that area had not stayed so desireable? What if, over the course of those 32 years, the building owner had skimped on maintenance and let the place fall into dis-repair? What if they had wanted to move elsewhere, for whatever reason? I think I can successfully predict what would have happened to their housing costs. The reality is that, were it not for rent-control artificially keeping their rental costs low, this probably wouldn’t be a good example to use for supporting renting over buying.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am
If you buy a house and then rent it out and use the equity to buy another property, is it still the same logic? I mean, if you have tons of equity and the rental you can get on your house is more than enough to cover expenses and mortgage, then won’t it have made sense to buy the house? And, will equity borrowing against that house still be bad debt? From what I hear, the bankers consider it income at that point, not debt. Am I wrong?
July 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
With this conversation in mind, I was surprised to find a column on MSN discussing the exact same thing. Their conclusion is that buying comes out ahead, in the long run.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/ItsStillBetterToBuyAHome.aspx
Interesting counterpoint, if nothing else.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:46 am
[...] benefits of renting. Get Rich Slowly has a great recent entry about the benefits of renting that mirrors my thoughts on the [...]
July 19th, 2007 at 1:01 am
@Dave 94
A counterpoint? Did you take a look at the numbers? That might be the case in Lewisville TX, a 3/4-bedroom house for 150K, but in some places, that will not be the case.
In their example the house is $150K and rent is $1250 /month. Try to run the same numbers when rent is $2000 and the house is worth $800K.
Btw, they assume a 20% downpaiment, wich is 30K for the 150K house and about 160K for the 800K house. Yes, the 20% downpayment for our numbers would be larger than the price of the house in that article.
Another thing not very clear in the article is what happens when you wait to buy the house.
They say in the article that if you bought in 1990 you would be ok by now. What he doesn’t address, in that article or in the other article with some “real California prices”, is that the same person could have waited, saved money and bought the house in 1995 and be way better than then 1990 scenario.
Also, note that for his example in the
http://assetbuilder.com:9669/blogs/scott_burns/archive/2007/04/07/The-Sublime-Beauty-of-Falling-Knives.aspx
article he uses somebody making $200K a year buying a 600K house that would otherwise coust 30K to rent. That is, a $600K house rented for about $2500. (those are optimistic numbers for his example).
I hope he knows his stuff but when I run the numbers I’m nowhere close to what he comes out with. How does he reach the lifetime savings of each?
To make his numbers sort of work (not by a lot). He uses a theory called consumption smoothing. I don’t know the ins and outs of this theory but I can see 2 flaws from the surface. For one, it aims at dying with 0 money. (You try to maximize what you spend in life, not what you save). Secondly, it tries to do it by basing itself on what you can afford on your current situation. Basically, it doesn’t plan on you improving finantially, it aims to keep you at the same level. This kind of works out if you’re rich, but doesn’t play so well if you’re not. And I’m sure the Doctor in his example making 200K a year won’t suffer if he keeps that lifestyle. Somebody family making 40K might want to improve it, and who knows, maybe die with some money left over so their kids can aim at the 200K doctor life.
(That being said, it’s an interesting economic theory)
July 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am
[...] to Jess for the link. Filed under: Lifestyle | Author: Greg [...]
July 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Selling our too-big house, investing our equity, then renting, has contributed significantly to our net worth and cash flow. I’ve experienced that in today’s real estate market and in many places, one can afford to rent a much nicer home when compared to buying.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
A lot of responses just parrot conventional wisdom directly contradicted by the facts in the article (from a bubble area). This is sad and scary to see on this particular website. Read, think, comprehend. Challenge your preconceived notions and mental blind areas.
Lemmings and cliffs: not a fable. Beware the herd.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Depending on your mortgage payment, renting is so much more hassle free and easy. Great post…owning involves so many more expenses that you can’t recoup on the sale.