5 ms·

Here in the US mortgages are typically 30 years, so taking your $250k @ 4% example over 30 years is $1200/month. After 7 years you'd have paid $35k in Principle

Here in the US mortgages are typically 30 years, so taking your $250k @ 4% example over 30 years is $1200/month. After 7 years you'd have paid $35k in Principle and $66k in Interest [0] leaving a balance of $214k. The $1200 mortgage payment doesn't include property/school taxes per the jurisdiction, estimate $300/month, it doesn't include PMI (mortgage insurance for putting down less than 20%), it doesn't include HOA fees either which we'll estimate PMI+HOA at $100/month. So the total cost per month is $1600 which is $134,400 over 7 years. Property taxes and HOA fees could be a lot higher depending on location and they also typically increase every couple years, I'll keep it simple and skip those facts. After 7 years of owning that $250k home you will have paid $134k in total costs for it and property taxes, PMI and HOA, not including any maintenance costs (see my comment about maintenance/mechanical systems). So your $250k home will have to have appreciated over 50% in 7 years and be worth $384k for you to cover the costs of property taxes, PMI and HOA fees plus the mortgage principle+interest. If its less than $384k you are not breaking even (I'm not adding in all the extra stuff that happens with owning a home either). Real estate advice is also generic and location matters a lot. These past few years property values have soared, which is unusual. They haven't soared everywhere though. Inflation has also soared along with interest rates so yes on paper a house may have inflated value (like +50%) but the numbers of buyers and sellers has gone down dramatically, values will also fall from their highs. [0] https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/amortization-calculator/ https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/amortization-calculator/

mattmanser 3y ago
It's not $134k to break even, it's is that $134k less than $[YOUR RENT OVER 7 YEARS]. Unless your suggestion is we should all go homeless. But your landlord also has to pay property/school taxes. Your landlord has to pay HOA fees. And landlord fees, business taxes, administration fees, accountancy fees, or whatever delights the US tax systems have conjured compared to the UK one. And they have to make money. Otherwise they'd just sell the house and put the money in a tracker fund. So they have to make 5% per year on $250k. Which comes out at... $1250. Oh, how odd! It's the same as the 4% mortgage payment (smart readers will notice that's today's mortgage payment, not the low mortgage rates over the last 10 years!). Or they put 20% down on the house and pay a mortgage. For a higher amount than a home owner. With no tax breaks. So they have a base price, $1250 + taxes + HOA, etc. ANything less than that and they should just stop being a landlord. A quick google brings this up about the US rental market: The amount of rent you charge your tenants should be a percentage of your home's market value. Typically, the rents that landlords charge fall between 0.8% and 1.1% of the home's value. For example, for a home valued at $250,000, a landlord could charge between $2,000 and $2,750 each month So the advice for minimum rent on a $250k house in the US is $2000, minimum. 7 * 12 * 2000 = 168,000. So the question is, do you want to spend a minimum of $168,000 on rent. Maybe up to $231,000. That's what you will lose on rent. There's no "break even", you don't benefit from house price rises. That's dead money you're never going to see it again. Or do you want to spend $134k on home ownership? And have $35k in equity (which you conveniently left out of your calculation). Probably much more equity than that because of inflation and house price rises, unless you bought when houses were at a peak. What you've got wrong is that the "cost" of buying vs renting is actually the one-off fees you pay each time you buy a house. The lawyers fees, the mortgage arrangement fees, the legal searches, etc. The cost of selling your home (the estate agent fee, realtor in America I guess). In the UK we have a tax too, stamp duty, when you by a home. And if you move in 2 years you have to pay all that again. That's why it sometimes make sense to rent vs buying. But long-term, buying is always better, because landlords have to make money and have the same costs as a home owner. It's basic economics. And over 7 years? No contest. Buy.
- smartician 3y ago
  You're assuming that all landlords are rational. Many either see it as a leveraged investment where rent is just one factor to offset their cost, hoping that appreciation will make it profitable. Or the home had strong appreciation so that their cost relative to the current value is low. Or they have some sentimental attachment to the property and rather rent it out at a loss than sell it. In California especially, they might have locked in a low property tax rate which is a fraction of what you would pay when you buy the home today. For example, my in-laws pay $700/month in property tax. If I bought their house at market price today, my property tax bill would be $3,000/month. For example I rent a home that's currently worth $1.3 million for $3,500/month. The landlord bought it in 2004 for $570,000. Would it make sense for the landlord to sell it instead of renting it out? Maybe, but based on their original investment they're getting a good return. If I were to buy that home off of them, my monthly payment would be more than double the rent. So this works for both of us I guess.
  - mattmanser 3y ago
    And what's that got to do with the price of fish? It doesn't change the facts, most people will not get amazing rental deals, your advice is wrong and it doesn't matter how many alt accounts you use Matt. You're very badly wrong. The irony here is that your landlord gained $3,300 a month in property value while you lost the same amount on rent. So the 7 year homeowner is absolutely destroying the renter. So this demonstrates perfectly how, over a longer term of 7 years, you are always better off buying.
    - smartician 3y ago
      I don't know who Matt is, but I now know that you lack even basic financial knowledge. According to your logic, if I can rent a house for $1, then I'm still losing $1 and my landlord is "gaining $1 in property value". Looks like it was a bad idea to insert myself into this conversation in the first place.

mattmanser 3y ago

It's not $134k to break even, it's is that $134k less than $[YOUR RENT OVER 7 YEARS]. Unless your suggestion is we should all go homeless. But your landlord also has to pay property/school taxes. Your landlord has to pay HOA fees. And landlord fees, business taxes, administration fees, accountancy fees, or whatever delights the US tax systems have conjured compared to the UK one. And they have to make money. Otherwise they'd just sell the house and put the money in a tracker fund. So they have to make 5% per year on $250k. Which comes out at... $1250. Oh, how odd! It's the same as the 4% mortgage payment (smart readers will notice that's today's mortgage payment, not the low mortgage rates over the last 10 years!). Or they put 20% down on the house and pay a mortgage. For a higher amount than a home owner. With no tax breaks. So they have a base price, $1250 + taxes + HOA, etc. ANything less than that and they should just stop being a landlord. A quick google brings this up about the US rental market: The amount of rent you charge your tenants should be a percentage of your home's market value. Typically, the rents that landlords charge fall between 0.8% and 1.1% of the home's value. For example, for a home valued at $250,000, a landlord could charge between $2,000 and $2,750 each month So the advice for minimum rent on a $250k house in the US is $2000, minimum. 7 * 12 * 2000 = 168,000. So the question is, do you want to spend a minimum of $168,000 on rent. Maybe up to $231,000. That's what you will lose on rent. There's no "break even", you don't benefit from house price rises. That's dead money you're never going to see it again. Or do you want to spend $134k on home ownership? And have $35k in equity (which you conveniently left out of your calculation). Probably much more equity than that because of inflation and house price rises, unless you bought when houses were at a peak. What you've got wrong is that the "cost" of buying vs renting is actually the one-off fees you pay each time you buy a house. The lawyers fees, the mortgage arrangement fees, the legal searches, etc. The cost of selling your home (the estate agent fee, realtor in America I guess). In the UK we have a tax too, stamp duty, when you by a home. And if you move in 2 years you have to pay all that again. That's why it sometimes make sense to rent vs buying. But long-term, buying is always better, because landlords have to make money and have the same costs as a home owner. It's basic economics. And over 7 years? No contest. Buy.

smartician 3y ago
You're assuming that all landlords are rational. Many either see it as a leveraged investment where rent is just one factor to offset their cost, hoping that appreciation will make it profitable. Or the home had strong appreciation so that their cost relative to the current value is low. Or they have some sentimental attachment to the property and rather rent it out at a loss than sell it. In California especially, they might have locked in a low property tax rate which is a fraction of what you would pay when you buy the home today. For example, my in-laws pay $700/month in property tax. If I bought their house at market price today, my property tax bill would be $3,000/month. For example I rent a home that's currently worth $1.3 million for $3,500/month. The landlord bought it in 2004 for $570,000. Would it make sense for the landlord to sell it instead of renting it out? Maybe, but based on their original investment they're getting a good return. If I were to buy that home off of them, my monthly payment would be more than double the rent. So this works for both of us I guess.
- mattmanser 3y ago
  And what's that got to do with the price of fish? It doesn't change the facts, most people will not get amazing rental deals, your advice is wrong and it doesn't matter how many alt accounts you use Matt. You're very badly wrong. The irony here is that your landlord gained $3,300 a month in property value while you lost the same amount on rent. So the 7 year homeowner is absolutely destroying the renter. So this demonstrates perfectly how, over a longer term of 7 years, you are always better off buying.
  - smartician 3y ago
    I don't know who Matt is, but I now know that you lack even basic financial knowledge. According to your logic, if I can rent a house for $1, then I'm still losing $1 and my landlord is "gaining $1 in property value". Looks like it was a bad idea to insert myself into this conversation in the first place.