5 ms·
tldr: like most things in life, there is no "one correct answer". basically, the cheaper the property, the better idea it is to buy. yes. this tool illustra
by m3mnoch 13y ago
tldr: like most things in life, there is no "one correct answer". basically, the cheaper the property, the better idea it is to buy.
yes. this tool illustrates it perfectly. [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calcula...] it actually shows why the khan video is seriously flawed.
if you plug in the values he uses in the video: (which are stupid and no money manager in the world would tell you to buy a house like that)
- $1,000,000 house
- 25% down (all $250k? really?)
- 6% interest (ouch...)
- $3,000 a month in rent for 1600 square feet? (in the bay area!?!? hahahahahah)
that, of course, adds up to a terrible loss of $200k after six years for buying.
now, let's change the numbers to something more reasonable.
- $1,000,000 house. (1600 square foot house in the bay area)
- 10% down. (that's all you need and this leaves $150k for investment)
- $4,500 a month in rent (according to zillow, that's what a 1600 square foot house rents for)
- 5% interest is more realistic.
that is still a loss for the buyer, but it's $45k instead. plus, you haven't completely destroyed your cash flow and investment capital.
still bad tho, huh?
yeah. because buying a $1,000,000 house in an over-inflated area is dumb.
now, let's look at something where it actually makes sense.
- same house.
- cheaper area -- not everyone wants to live in the bay area.
from some real numbers on a house i actually own (tho, i don't live in it - we're renting it out)
- $120,000 house.
- 10% down. (you have almost *ALL* of that fictional $250k left...)
- 5% interest
- $1200 a month in rent (again, zillow for that area)
that's a net win of $59k if you buy.
if i lived in the bay area and didn't need all my intangibles (like, putting in new countertops in my kitchen or adding solar panels if i wanted to), i would totally rent.
if i lived in kirkland? i'd sure as hell buy.
- espinchi 13y agoI agree that many of the numbers in the video are not very realistic. For a $120000 house like yours, I expected a monthly rent of about half. Your area seems like a great place to own a property, so it looks to me that buying is definitely the way to go there.