4 ms·

Housing may not depreciate like cars but it doesn't always appreciate at the rate in many areas that justifies keeping it with all the costs. In my neighborhood

Housing may not depreciate like cars but it doesn't always appreciate at the rate in many areas that justifies keeping it with all the costs. In my neighborhood (with a decent school district and safe/no crime area), housing market has appreciated like 3-4% at best in last 7 years. I like living in my house but looking at it purely from an investment perspective, the returns are terrible because If I sold it today, I don't know if the 3-4% gain would be enough to offset the costs of repairs/taxes etc. that I have spent in last 7 years. And I live in NJ, the highest taxed state in the nation when it comes to property taxes. Sure I could stay in another 5-10 years to find out if appreciation rate goes up but it is more of a gamble then since I am spending tons of money every year to maintain the house in addition to mortgage payments. Housing is NOT always a good investment from an economic perspective. It depends on the location, market events and most importantly what price you bought it at.

maxsilver 7y ago
> If I sold it today, I don't know if the 3-4% gain would be enough to offset the costs of repairs/taxes etc. that I have spent in last 7 years. Sure, agreed, but let's think that through a minute. So your housing has 'only' beaten inflation by ~25%, and that if you sold it today, you would have 'only' gotten 7 years of effectively-rent-free living? Imagine if you had actually had to rent a house during that time. I don't know what rates are in NJ, but you would have spent about $1200/month in rent (or ~$100k over 7 years) to have done something like that in Michigan. The common "bad" scenario I hear about is one like yours, where you got 7 years of housing, and the appreciation "only" covered almost all of that maintenance/upkeep, but didn't also cut you a free-money bonus check on top of it. That's where the "housing is always a good investment" line comes from. Yes, you had to take out a loan and front all the other money out-of-pocket yourself (and not everyone can afford to do that). But if you get it most-to-all of it back when you sell the house, then even in your "bad" example, you came out ~$100,000 ahead of any regular person who had not owned.
- the_gastropod 7y ago
  Whoa, there! Not so fast. In addition to things like home insurance, maintenance, etc, there's opportunity cost on the (I'm guessing?) 20% down payment. If GP had invested that 20% in a broad-market index fund over the past 7 years, I suspect it'd have grown a hell of a lot more than $100k.
  - maxsilver 7y ago
    If that was an option, sure absolutely. I've never met a person who could actually afford a 20% downpayment recently (5% downpayments are common here in Michigan, for real humans buying houses in the past decade or so). But yes, if you are wealthy enough to afford a 20% downpayment on a house, you are wealthy enough to potentially have opportunity costs from other investments at your disposal. Agreed.
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      The irony of the lower down payment? It increases demand; which obviously increases price. So they are able to afford what they normally can't afford because of the tool (i.e., lower down payment) which helped make homes unaffordable.
    - codegeek 7y ago
      I actually put 20% down 7 years ago on the house and I can tell you that if I had invested that downpayment purely in index funds, I would have a lot more cash today. So again, housing was not a good investment from an economic perspective. I bought it for my children but I look at it as a major expense and not investment.
      - chii 7y ago
        if you were less risk adverse, it's possible to pull equity out of your house and have that reinvested in stocks, and continue paying the mortgage (and may be work out a way to make it tax efficient, like debt recycling). Then as long as the stock market out-performs the debt cost (which is likely), you win out ahead by quite a bit more.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  > effectively-rent-free living? Not in NJ. Property taxes quickly eliminate any illusion of free. Factor in maintenance, including time, and you're barely breaking even. Owning provides a sense of stability and community. But investment in many areas is highly overrated.
throwaway100773 7y ago
People might be singing a different tune in a few decades when the ground flood of their buildings are taking on water from rising sea levels and economic activity is ceasing due to environmental effects. It’s a very idiosyncratic risk you’re taking buying a home. Looking at a primary residence as an investment is silly in my opinion. Treating it as consumption makes more sense.

maxsilver 7y ago

> If I sold it today, I don't know if the 3-4% gain would be enough to offset the costs of repairs/taxes etc. that I have spent in last 7 years. Sure, agreed, but let's think that through a minute. So your housing has 'only' beaten inflation by ~25%, and that if you sold it today, you would have 'only' gotten 7 years of effectively-rent-free living? Imagine if you had actually had to rent a house during that time. I don't know what rates are in NJ, but you would have spent about $1200/month in rent (or ~$100k over 7 years) to have done something like that in Michigan. The common "bad" scenario I hear about is one like yours, where you got 7 years of housing, and the appreciation "only" covered almost all of that maintenance/upkeep, but didn't also cut you a free-money bonus check on top of it. That's where the "housing is always a good investment" line comes from. Yes, you had to take out a loan and front all the other money out-of-pocket yourself (and not everyone can afford to do that). But if you get it most-to-all of it back when you sell the house, then even in your "bad" example, you came out ~$100,000 ahead of any regular person who had not owned.

the_gastropod 7y ago
Whoa, there! Not so fast. In addition to things like home insurance, maintenance, etc, there's opportunity cost on the (I'm guessing?) 20% down payment. If GP had invested that 20% in a broad-market index fund over the past 7 years, I suspect it'd have grown a hell of a lot more than $100k.
- maxsilver 7y ago
  If that was an option, sure absolutely. I've never met a person who could actually afford a 20% downpayment recently (5% downpayments are common here in Michigan, for real humans buying houses in the past decade or so). But yes, if you are wealthy enough to afford a 20% downpayment on a house, you are wealthy enough to potentially have opportunity costs from other investments at your disposal. Agreed.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    The irony of the lower down payment? It increases demand; which obviously increases price. So they are able to afford what they normally can't afford because of the tool (i.e., lower down payment) which helped make homes unaffordable.
  - codegeek 7y ago
    I actually put 20% down 7 years ago on the house and I can tell you that if I had invested that downpayment purely in index funds, I would have a lot more cash today. So again, housing was not a good investment from an economic perspective. I bought it for my children but I look at it as a major expense and not investment.
    - chii 7y ago
      if you were less risk adverse, it's possible to pull equity out of your house and have that reinvested in stocks, and continue paying the mortgage (and may be work out a way to make it tax efficient, like debt recycling). Then as long as the stock market out-performs the debt cost (which is likely), you win out ahead by quite a bit more.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
> effectively-rent-free living? Not in NJ. Property taxes quickly eliminate any illusion of free. Factor in maintenance, including time, and you're barely breaking even. Owning provides a sense of stability and community. But investment in many areas is highly overrated.

throwaway100773 7y ago

People might be singing a different tune in a few decades when the ground flood of their buildings are taking on water from rising sea levels and economic activity is ceasing due to environmental effects. It’s a very idiosyncratic risk you’re taking buying a home. Looking at a primary residence as an investment is silly in my opinion. Treating it as consumption makes more sense.