"You're arguing the "feelings" argument of investing which is vastly inferior to the mathematic reality of investing." I am not talking primarily about "invest

"You're arguing the "feelings" argument of investing which is vastly inferior to the mathematic reality of investing." I am not talking primarily about "investing". I'm talking about owning a home vs. renting a home not as a way to make an investment. Consequently the "feelings" (if you want to call it that) as well as the practical aspects of ownership (such as improvements and control) are important to some people. But not all. Depends on many factors. Which is what I said in my parent comment. You are saying "For the past 5 years, renting would've been much better than owning in most areas of the U.S." If you incorporate a time frame into investing anything can seem like a good or bad investment. For example using a 10 year time frame or even a 3 year time frame (before the RE market tanked). Different results? I'm sure you are not unhappy about the 500,000 you did make which if you had shifted the time frame would not have happened. I am not taking issue with what you are saying. I thought I layed out the case whereby there were other non-economic reasons that someone might make a particular decision to own vs. rent. As far as bank value and leverage I am well aware of that. Just like I am aware that if you are in a divorce an appraisal can come into play even though you are not selling anything (one party might retain the residence and be subject to a high or low value that may or may not benefit). Also the fact that people tend to spend more money if they feel rich and that their RE (which they have no intention of selling) is more "valuable". And so on.