3 ms·
#1, #2, #3, #4, #5 are all costs of use of the property, not ownership of it. Either you're using it for yourself (In which case, you'd either be paying yoursel
by vkou 3y ago
#1, #2, #3, #4, #5 are all costs of use of the property, not ownership of it. Either you're using it for yourself (In which case, you'd either be paying yourself for these things, or paying your landlord), or you're letting it out to someone (In which case, they are paying for use of the property).
If you just let the property rot without a tenant, then, yeah, this punishes you. I'd recommend against letting a property rot without a tenant, just like I'd recommend against buying 500 barrels of crude oil, and letting them rot away into worthless sludge in your cellar over twenty years. All things that we buy have a limited shelf life, you need to use and maintain them before they expire. Structures built on a property are no different.
#6-11 are real costs of investing into property, and I agree - they cost a hell of a lot more time and money than buying an index fund and sleeping on it for 40 years.
- magnuspaaske 3y agoNot really, there's a real cost of ownership for real estate that is more expensive than for owning stock in a company for instance. You still need a place to live and owning can be great for that – as to being a landlord there might still be better ways to make a return. But the real problem with real estate "investment" is that the return doesn't come from doing something productive but rather is predicated on preventing someone else from doing something productive, namely making more buildings.