4 ms·
> I really fail to see how most of those points are relevant when you consider that a home is an investment you can, you know, live in. The alternative would be
by smnrchrds 9y ago
> I really fail to see how most of those points are relevant when you consider that a home is an investment you can, you know, live in. The alternative would be to rent indefinitely, which apparently we're ok with even though its not just a 0% return on investment, its an infinitely negative percent return on investment.
This would only make sense if you want to live in a place indefinitely. When the economy here (Alberta, Canada) tanked due to falling oil prices, people who were renting and were laid off simply gave their 1-2 month notice to their landlord and moved to Montreal or Southern Ontario for better employment opportunities. Those who owned could not do that without taking a huge loss, selling their house for less than the price they bought it for, potentially less than the remaining mortgage obligation, potentially leading to their bankruptcy. As for renting it out? Forget about finding a tenant in that economy. And even if they did, how could they manage a property from the other side of the country?
Mobility is worth more than zero. If you think the economy in the place you are living is going to be good for the rest of your life (or at least the rest of your mortgage term) and you are certain you would not want to move during this time, go ahead and buy a place. Otherwise, it makes sense to rent.
- hrktb 9y agoTo chime in, being able to move to smaller or bigger places depending on your family needs, or closer/farther from big cities depending on your priorities of the moment are huge advantages.
- FLUX-YOU 9y agoTowns that depend on one or a few employers have been a losing bet for home ownership. This has been learned multiple times already. It seems good if you get out before it goes bust, but that's like catching a falling knife (especially if the company is not forthright about its impending doom).
- smnrchrds 9y agoIt was not that there was one or few employers. There were many companies, large and small, operating in Calgary, Edmonton, and the rest of Alberta. The problem was that the lion's share of the economy was directly or indirectly related to a single industry: oil and gas. When the price of oil went down, they all suffered. I think the majority opinion on HN is that unlike other industries like energy, auto manufacturing, agriculture, etc., tech is uniquely immune to downturns. My impression is that most people on HN believe that the tech scene in California is only ever going to get bigger and more lucrative, and with it property prices are always going to go up. Even suggesting that tech and SF bay area might end up like, say Detroit and auto manufacturing industry, would make many to dismiss your point entirely. But as an outsider who does not have a horse in this race, I don't share the same mindset. Only time will tell the truth. But I won't be surprised if the sustained tech boom goes bust at some point during the next half century.
- asfasgasg 9y ago> potentially leading to their bankruptcy Whoa, you have to go bankrupt to stop paying a mortgage in Canada? In the US, these are (in my experience) secured, non-recourse loans. That means that the bank's final option is to take the house, but if they do that, you owe them nothing else.
- smnrchrds 9y ago> Whoa, you have to go bankrupt to stop paying a mortgage in Canada? It depends on which province your property is located at. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, mortgages are non-recourse. In the rest of the country they are not. So for the majority of Canadians bankruptcy is the only way to get rid of their mortgage. Admittedly in the specific example I gave this would not be the case. However to the best of my knowledge, defaulting on a non-recourse mortgage ruins your creditworthiness the same as declaring bankruptcy. Considering how many landlords and employers check your credit report, defaulting on a mortgage could have serious consequences for your livelihood, even if it is non-recourse.
- DrScump 9y agothe bank's final option is to take the house Sometimes not even that, in states with homestead exemption protections.
- asfasgasg 9y agoNormally the homestead exemption would protect the homestead from creditors other than the mortgage lender. Otherwise, it would be substantially impossible to induce banks to give mortgages.
- sulam 9y agoYou know what's worse than homes when it comes to investments? Kids! They don't give you any return on investment at all until possibly late in life, depending on your culture and relationship (better hope they stay near you) and they make you a lot less mobile, both in terms of geography and career opportunities. They suck up a lot of your income and they probably shorten your life span due to lost sleep in the early years. Stay away!
- jopsen 9y agoBuying a home is a bad investment, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it :) Just don't do it as an investment.
- Flozzin 9y agoI think a lot of people miss this point. A home isn't an investment. It's a place to live. There are studies I have seen that show that your children do better in school if you have a house vs an apartment. There could be other variables there sure. But the main reason I hear to buy a home is to 'invest in your future'. Personally, I live in an apartment. I don't want the upkeep costs and time associated with a house. Even if I were to find a place to buy with a mortgage similar to my rent, I would then have upkeep costs on top of that. No thanks. I'll let someone else do all my maintenance, mowing, and snow removal, thank you very much.
- Spooky23 9y agoConversely, good luck finding an affordable rental during an oil boom.