4 ms·

The amount is irrelevant, since you are making the same percentage on whatever sum investment. I think you are using a non-technical definition of liquidity: I

by soyiuz 10y ago

The amount is irrelevant, since you are making the same percentage on whatever sum investment. I think you are using a non-technical definition of liquidity: I can convert ETFs or stocks into cash almost immediately. So for example, it is easy to scale down or to move money from stocks to bonds. The house is immovable property in all senses of the word. It is difficult to convert to cash or to move (in case of political upheaval, for example). Your last point ignores the significant costs associated with 1. amortization and 2. the liquidity problem. First, given a neutral market, the house decays in value: appliances need fixing, floors, heaters, boilers etc. We are just used to rising prices due to speculation, but nothing guarantees the upward trend. Second, consider the cost of converting cash into house and the other way around: mortgage fees, interest, buying and selling fees, plus real estate taxes. The New York Times has an excellent calculator on buying vs. renting. The math just does not support your conclusions. Buying wins out after 10-15 years GIVEN an upward real estate market. With any downturns, renting wins out indefinitely. Include the risk of investing into a single instrument (all you money is in the house) plus the stresses of ownership (shit goes wrong all the time and costs you money) and the picture is not so clear at all.

bane 10y ago
To make your original scheme work (investment earnings pay for rental costs), you investments are de facto illiquid, otherwise you have no way to pay for housing without breaking from the scheme. You also need to make more from your investments than renting currently costs because over time rental prices are likely to go up and your investment return will need to increase. You are right that property ownership is more illiquid, but supposing I had a million dollars invested making me a better than 4.5% return, why would I pay rent when I could just buy a house with that money instead? At the end of the mortgage period I'd have my original investment plus ownership of real property, while the renter would only have their investment dollars and would have to continue the investment-for-housing scheme for the rest of their life. > First, given a neutral market, This is a false assumption as markets are almost never neutral. It's impossible to be a market oracle, but historic trends show a general upwards movement in most well functioning economies. It's a better than chance bet that most markets are thus net positive. You are correct though that nothing guarantees this upward trend. The New York Times calculator is pretty good, but misses the simple fact that you need to live somewhere forever and not just for the period of a mortgage. Thus any comparison should be made with how long you expect to live. The picture is very clear, you will likely need housing longer than 10-15 years, and if that's true, then buying property nearly always wins over renting.

by soyiuz 10y ago

bane 10y ago

To make your original scheme work (investment earnings pay for rental costs), you investments are de facto illiquid, otherwise you have no way to pay for housing without breaking from the scheme. You also need to make more from your investments than renting currently costs because over time rental prices are likely to go up and your investment return will need to increase. You are right that property ownership is more illiquid, but supposing I had a million dollars invested making me a better than 4.5% return, why would I pay rent when I could just buy a house with that money instead? At the end of the mortgage period I'd have my original investment plus ownership of real property, while the renter would only have their investment dollars and would have to continue the investment-for-housing scheme for the rest of their life. > First, given a neutral market, This is a false assumption as markets are almost never neutral. It's impossible to be a market oracle, but historic trends show a general upwards movement in most well functioning economies. It's a better than chance bet that most markets are thus net positive. You are correct though that nothing guarantees this upward trend. The New York Times calculator is pretty good, but misses the simple fact that you need to live somewhere forever and not just for the period of a mortgage. Thus any comparison should be made with how long you expect to live. The picture is very clear, you will likely need housing longer than 10-15 years, and if that's true, then buying property nearly always wins over renting.