I understand what the responses are saying, I think I am not communicating my position clearly, which ultimately is a matter of values and opinion. I personally

I understand what the responses are saying, I think I am not communicating my position clearly, which ultimately is a matter of values and opinion. I personally don't believe that housing should be an investment vehicle, or at least, not the primary investment for individuals. I am not an expert by any means, and perhaps I am overlooking details. Housing is currently viewed as an asset, however the system in place provides an asymmetrical risk/reward profile between buyer and bank. Whether a bank finances a house at low price/high interest rate versus high price/low interest rate is of little consequence to their cash flow, in the end, they will make the same amount on interest. The buyer will pay the same amount month over month. Once the homebuyer pays off the home and owns it, when they go to rent or sell, do they benefit from a changing interest rate? No. If the interest rate is now higher, then their list price is now lower. If the interest rate is lower, then their house price goes up yes, but the buyer demand now decreases. The bank has the interest rate as a tool to mitigate their risk, but the individual does not have that tool, so they are exposed to the risk of changing rates, with no upside. If appraisal values were regulated from increasing rapidly, then the bank would be taking some risk away from the buyer. The home seller in that situation would sell for less, but the result would be smoother and more stable of an asset for all individuals. In the current system, the individual is more at risk of over leveraging than the bank, who should know better. The risk of over leveraging should be shifted to the bank, as they have significantly more resources and wisdom to mitigate that.