4 ms·

There's another intangible benefit to owning if you know you're going to stay in the area long term -- you can't be forced out of your home. I was forced out o

There's another intangible benefit to owning if you know you're going to stay in the area long term -- you can't be forced out of your home. I was forced out of one home I rented due to owner move-in, which led to a stressful 30 days of trying to find a new apartment in a tight housing market. We managed to find a place outside of the city, but close enough to transit for a manageable commute. And rent was about the same, though for an apartment half the size. And then, as housing prices continued to rise, that apartment raised the rent 25%. Fortunately, they gave us 60 days notice, so we started looking around for an affordable home to purchase (even farther away, but still near transit), and found one where the PITI+HOA was less than the new rent would have been. Rents have continued to rise (as have home prices, our home is now worth about twice what we paid for it 5 years ago, this market doesn't seem sustainable, but hopefully after the next crash we won't be underwater on the mortgage).

cperciva 9y ago
There's another intangible benefit to owning if you know you're going to stay in the area long term -- you can't be forced out of your home. Well, you can. The city decides to put in a new subway line and your house is where they want to build a station. Or (depending on your local laws) the other members of your strata corporation vote to sell the building to a developer who wants to tear it down and build a tower. But sure, it's far less common for someone to be forced out of a home they own, and when it does happen there's typically years of notice.
- elif 9y ago
  Well, in that very obscure case, you are generally legally obligated to something like 110% of market value, so you can't really compare that to e.g. being thrown out because tony said so..
  - im3w1l 9y ago
    How fairly are market values calculated?
- Johnny555 9y ago
  True, but I excluded unlikely events like an eminent domain takeover, asteroid strike, etc in my cost-benefit analysis. An earthquake related eviction is probably most likely, but that'd be the case whether I own or rent.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- widforss 9y ago
  They're currently closing down one and moving one town respectively in my county. It doesn't matter if you own or rent here, not when there's ore in the ground. Some propaganda from LKAB for the interested: https://samhallsomvandling.lkab.com/en/ https://samhallsomvandling.lkab.com/en/
usaar333 9y ago
Wow, where do you live? 30 days seems really short for owner move-in; CA is 60 days (at least if you've been there a year)
icc97 9y ago
There's other intangible benefits too. Buying a house is enforced saving. When people have money spare they typically spend it. If as the author suggests people instead invest in the stock market there is constant temptation not to put the money in there in the first place or take the money out because you want to buy something shiny. You can use owning a home as a way of bringing stability. So instead of making plans for a year at a time you can make 5 year plans based on living where you are. However there's a quote from 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' [0] that your primary residence is a liability. So where as it makes sense to buy there's no point in buying a massive expensive house because it doesn't bring in any income. Buy one that fits your needs with possibly some minimum room for expansion. That's one of the further benefits of having bought - if you find the perfect area but your family expands you can modify the house that you're in and stay in exactly the same place. [0]: http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Rich-Dad-Financial-Education-Blog/april-2013/rich-dad-scam-6-your-house-is-an-asset.aspx http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Rich-Dad-Financial-Educatio...
- prawn 9y ago
  I think that enforced saving is one of the biggest advantages. Separately, where I live in Australia, there are transactional costs (mostly stamp duty) that make getting in and out of a house a bit of an extra imposition. I remember about 20 years ago, it was suggested that (generally speaking) if you were likely to stay put for about 5+ years, you were better off buying than renting. Otherwise, typically blue chip buys on the stock market with the discipline to keep investing was a better bet.
nkohari 9y ago
This is an important piece that is often overlooked. My wife and I rented a house in 2010 from a builder who wasn't able to sell it after the property bubble burst. After our first year term was up, they agreed to renew the lease, only to call us back a week later and say that "although the mortgage was current on the property, the bank was calling up the loan" and that we needed to vacate in 30 days. (Our best guess is that the bank decided to seize the house due to non-payment of another mortgage held by the company.) As a result we had to scurry to find another house available for rent, which put us in a terrible position to comparison shop or negotiate on the rent. We were fortunate enough to find something that would work for us, but I think we overpaid substantially for a few years.
BeetleB 9y ago
>There's another intangible benefit to owning if you know you're going to stay in the area long term -- you can't be forced out of your home. Depends on the regulations in your state and the rules of your HOA.

cperciva 9y ago

There's another intangible benefit to owning if you know you're going to stay in the area long term -- you can't be forced out of your home. Well, you can. The city decides to put in a new subway line and your house is where they want to build a station. Or (depending on your local laws) the other members of your strata corporation vote to sell the building to a developer who wants to tear it down and build a tower. But sure, it's far less common for someone to be forced out of a home they own, and when it does happen there's typically years of notice.

elif 9y ago
Well, in that very obscure case, you are generally legally obligated to something like 110% of market value, so you can't really compare that to e.g. being thrown out because tony said so..
- im3w1l 9y ago
  How fairly are market values calculated?
Johnny555 9y ago
True, but I excluded unlikely events like an eminent domain takeover, asteroid strike, etc in my cost-benefit analysis. An earthquake related eviction is probably most likely, but that'd be the case whether I own or rent.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
widforss 9y ago
They're currently closing down one and moving one town respectively in my county. It doesn't matter if you own or rent here, not when there's ore in the ground. Some propaganda from LKAB for the interested: https://samhallsomvandling.lkab.com/en/ https://samhallsomvandling.lkab.com/en/

usaar333 9y ago

Wow, where do you live? 30 days seems really short for owner move-in; CA is 60 days (at least if you've been there a year)

icc97 9y ago

There's other intangible benefits too. Buying a house is enforced saving. When people have money spare they typically spend it. If as the author suggests people instead invest in the stock market there is constant temptation not to put the money in there in the first place or take the money out because you want to buy something shiny. You can use owning a home as a way of bringing stability. So instead of making plans for a year at a time you can make 5 year plans based on living where you are. However there's a quote from 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' [0] that your primary residence is a liability. So where as it makes sense to buy there's no point in buying a massive expensive house because it doesn't bring in any income. Buy one that fits your needs with possibly some minimum room for expansion. That's one of the further benefits of having bought - if you find the perfect area but your family expands you can modify the house that you're in and stay in exactly the same place. [0]: http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Rich-Dad-Financial-Education-Blog/april-2013/rich-dad-scam-6-your-house-is-an-asset.aspx http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Rich-Dad-Financial-Educatio...

prawn 9y ago
I think that enforced saving is one of the biggest advantages. Separately, where I live in Australia, there are transactional costs (mostly stamp duty) that make getting in and out of a house a bit of an extra imposition. I remember about 20 years ago, it was suggested that (generally speaking) if you were likely to stay put for about 5+ years, you were better off buying than renting. Otherwise, typically blue chip buys on the stock market with the discipline to keep investing was a better bet.

nkohari 9y ago

This is an important piece that is often overlooked. My wife and I rented a house in 2010 from a builder who wasn't able to sell it after the property bubble burst. After our first year term was up, they agreed to renew the lease, only to call us back a week later and say that "although the mortgage was current on the property, the bank was calling up the loan" and that we needed to vacate in 30 days. (Our best guess is that the bank decided to seize the house due to non-payment of another mortgage held by the company.) As a result we had to scurry to find another house available for rent, which put us in a terrible position to comparison shop or negotiate on the rent. We were fortunate enough to find something that would work for us, but I think we overpaid substantially for a few years.

BeetleB 9y ago

>There's another intangible benefit to owning if you know you're going to stay in the area long term -- you can't be forced out of your home. Depends on the regulations in your state and the rules of your HOA.