Home buying thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Haus

<Silver Donator>
13,034
50,844
It's hard to answer that question for the broader population, since I think so many of us have a bias towards our own upbringing/current means which is likely middle class to lower upper class.

For someone with the means, home ownership is the single best hedge against inflation. I don't like to think of a home as an appreciating asset only because you need a roof no matter what. Yeah, it happens, and even the majority of the time lately. But it shouldn't be a given. As a tool to fight inflation though, when you're talking anywhere from 15-35% of your expenses being housing, it's massive.

But yeah, if you're perennial poor, I'm not sure it makes sense. But I'm not going to say definitely either way since I just have no clue.
Even without appreciation....

When you buy a house with a mortgage you're buying it in "today dollars", which then inflate, but your mortgage payment doesn't (unless you are an idiot and sign an ARM) outside insurance and tax increases. When I bought my house my mortgage payment wasn't that far off from what many friends were paying for rent for their places.. Now 20 years in and almost paid off I'm spending on a 2800 sq ft house less than an average 1 bedroom apartment will run you in the same area of town.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Lanx

<Prior Amod>
65,920
150,180
Even without appreciation....

When you buy a house with a mortgage you're buying it in "today dollars", which then inflate, but your mortgage payment doesn't (unless you are an idiot and sign an ARM) outside insurance and tax increases. When I bought my house my mortgage payment wasn't that far off from what many friends were paying for rent for their places.. Now 20 years in and almost paid off I'm spending on a 2800 sq ft house less than an average 1 bedroom apartment will run you in the same area of town.
the only caveat i would say is stupid taxes
surprisemotherfucker-lmao.gif
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user

OU Ariakas

Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
<Silver Donator>
7,427
20,957
It's hard to answer that question for the broader population, since I think so many of us have a bias towards our own upbringing/current means which is likely middle class to lower upper class.

For someone with the means, home ownership is the single best hedge against inflation. I don't like to think of a home as an appreciating asset only because you need a roof no matter what. Yeah, it happens, and even the majority of the time lately. But it shouldn't be a given. As a tool to fight inflation though, when you're talking anywhere from 15-35% of your expenses being housing, it's massive.

But yeah, if you're perennial poor, I'm not sure it makes sense. But I'm not going to say definitely either way since I just have no clue.

Even without appreciation....

When you buy a house with a mortgage you're buying it in "today dollars", which then inflate, but your mortgage payment doesn't (unless you are an idiot and sign an ARM) outside insurance and tax increases. When I bought my house my mortgage payment wasn't that far off from what many friends were paying for rent for their places.. Now 20 years in and almost paid off I'm spending on a 2800 sq ft house less than an average 1 bedroom apartment will run you in the same area of town.

I agree with both of you when we are talking about someone who has a job/career that is relatively stable and they can plan out the next 20 years around the same location. My issue with owning vs. renting is that MOBILITY is one of the most valuable assets to the job market and a huge percentage of the population does not understand it. Being able to accept a job for 20-50-100% more pay in another city/state is something that would happen routinely if people could get over moving away from what is comfortable. Someone could really up their earnings and easily outpace the inflation by renting for the early/mid years of their career and moving where the money is best. It also gives them the ability to settle down somewhere less expensive later on because they have already set their minimum salary for wherever that destination is.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Haus

<Silver Donator>
13,034
50,844
I agree with both of you when we are talking about someone who has a job/career that is relatively stable and they can plan out the next 20 years around the same location. My issue with owning vs. renting is that MOBILITY is one of the most valuable assets to the job market and a huge percentage of the population does not understand it. Being able to accept a job for 20-50-100% more pay in another city/state is something that would happen routinely if people could get over moving away from what is comfortable. Someone could really up their earnings and easily outpace the inflation by renting for the early/mid years of their career and moving where the money is best. It also gives them the ability to settle down somewhere less expensive later on because they have already set their minimum salary for wherever that destination is.
You don't need 20 years around the same location. The rate at which my house has accrued value over time made it such that I could have sold for a profit within the first 5 years of owning it, probably less. It's more along the lines of "Can you commit to living in an area for 2-5 years?" One of my closest friends bought a house here in Dallas when moving back here for a job, then around 3 years later she met the boy of her dreams, who happened to live in NYC. Transferred to a gig there, sold her house here, turned a small profit off it. So long as we have a government mandate which will maintain at LEAST 2% inflation per year house values will keep going up over time, with only the occasional "correction" in my experience.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
5,315
9,019
You don't need 20 years around the same location. The rate at which my house has accrued value over time made it such that I could have sold for a profit within the first 5 years of owning it, probably less. It's more along the lines of "Can you commit to living in an area for 2-5 years?" One of my closest friends bought a house here in Dallas when moving back here for a job, then around 3 years later she met the boy of her dreams, who happened to live in NYC. Transferred to a gig there, sold her house here, turned a small profit off it. So long as we have a government mandate which will maintain at LEAST 2% inflation per year house values will keep going up over time, with only the occasional "correction" in my experience.

It may be possible to get small positive returns from real estate over short time periods, but the opportunity cost is significant. Over the last 30 years the average return from real estate is 5.3% vs 9.6% from the S&P. Couple that with 6% transaction costs every time you exchange, and high turnover real estate performs poorly. In five years you can expect to just more or less break even. The historical rule of thumb has been that you should expect to be stable for at least 7 years to be worth buying.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,153
42,746
It may be possible to get small positive returns from real estate over short time periods, but the opportunity cost is significant. Over the last 30 years the average return from real estate is 5.3% vs 9.6% from the S&P. Couple that with 6% transaction costs every time you exchange, and high turnover real estate performs poorly. In five years you can expect to just more or less break even. The historical rule of thumb has been that you should expect to be stable for at least 7 years to be worth buying.

I know I've only been a homeowner in the post 2007 landscape but I feel like these types of "traditional" (e.g. 1955-2005) concepts are no longer reflective of current market reality. If I had waited to buy any of my houses and followed this rule, I would have lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars. Similarly, had I bought the wrong houses or done so at other times, I would be out at least tens of thousands.

To that end it has always felt more like a pure market investment play even as an individual homeowner. Maybe I'm more "in tune" with how nice a neighborhood is than I am with a faceless megacorps product management and prospects in 5 years so I do better? But if a house is nice and the area is nice and the price is nice...
 

Haus

<Silver Donator>
13,034
50,844
It may be possible to get small positive returns from real estate over short time periods, but the opportunity cost is significant. Over the last 30 years the average return from real estate is 5.3% vs 9.6% from the S&P. Couple that with 6% transaction costs every time you exchange, and high turnover real estate performs poorly. In five years you can expect to just more or less break even. The historical rule of thumb has been that you should expect to be stable for at least 7 years to be worth buying.
This would apply if you were investing in multiple houses. But in terms of owning a home... You're going to be sinking money every month into either rent or a mortgage, so you have a sunk cost either way. With one of those you build equity and stand to make some money on selling it, with the other it's just money that is a sunk cost into a space to sleep and eat in.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
5,315
9,019
This would apply if you were investing in multiple houses. But in terms of owning a home... You're going to be sinking money every month into either rent or a mortgage, so you have a sunk cost either way. With one of those you build equity and stand to make some money on selling it, with the other it's just money that is a sunk cost into a space to sleep and eat in.

You have to include return on equity, which you should be otherwise investing if renting, not just the total monthly payment. If you're renting your benchmark for comparability should be against the interest payment portion of the mortgage plus your expectations for maintenance and taxes and all adjusted for inflation and rent increase rate.

There are some really good, detailed, online calculators for making the rent/buy comparisons, and the results are often surprising.


I know I've only been a homeowner in the post 2007 landscape but I feel like these types of "traditional" (e.g. 1955-2005) concepts are no longer reflective of current market reality.

It's the data we have. Overall house appreciation through 2018 was more or less within historical expectations. It's really the last five years that have been off the rails. Hard to know if that's a permanent change or not, but recent rates of increase can't be maintained. I don't think there's going to be a retraction, but likely a return to more normal appreciation rates.
 
Last edited:

Sanrith Descartes

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
<Gold Donor>
45,070
122,620
It may be possible to get small positive returns from real estate over short time periods, but the opportunity cost is significant. Over the last 30 years the average return from real estate is 5.3% vs 9.6% from the S&P. Couple that with 6% transaction costs every time you exchange, and high turnover real estate performs poorly. In five years you can expect to just more or less break even. The historical rule of thumb has been that you should expect to be stable for at least 7 years to be worth buying.
RE is something to see as a diverse option to things like stocks. Yes it will most likely underperform the historical S&P, but its good to spread the investment dollars around.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Sanrith Descartes

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
<Gold Donor>
45,070
122,620
I know I've only been a homeowner in the post 2007 landscape but I feel like these types of "traditional" (e.g. 1955-2005) concepts are no longer reflective of current market reality. If I had waited to buy any of my houses and followed this rule, I would have lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars. Similarly, had I bought the wrong houses or done so at other times, I would be out at least tens of thousands.

To that end it has always felt more like a pure market investment play even as an individual homeowner. Maybe I'm more "in tune" with how nice a neighborhood is than I am with a faceless megacorps product management and prospects in 5 years so I do better? But if a house is nice and the area is nice and the price is nice...
This is something stock investors tend to suffer from also. On a long enough time horizon, who cares if you overpaid for AAPL stock by 5 or 6 bucks. Waiting and waiting for the housing "bottom" can end up costing you. If you are happy with the price of the house and it fits into your budget, then buy it. Over 20 or 30 years the extra $20 or even $30k won't really matter.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Sanrith Descartes

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
<Gold Donor>
45,070
122,620
Just looked on the MLS. Houses being built down the block from mine with 400 less sq and 1 less bathroom on less than half our lot size are now selling for $25k more than we paid back in May when we signed the contract.
 

Mahes

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
5,376
6,463
This would apply if you were investing in multiple houses. But in terms of owning a home... You're going to be sinking money every month into either rent or a mortgage, so you have a sunk cost either way. With one of those you build equity and stand to make some money on selling it, with the other it's just money that is a sunk cost into a space to sleep and eat in.
There is an argument for both sides.

It is true that owning in the long run is the better play. However you do not save a lot of money by owning. You have mentioned taxes and a mortgage. There is also upkeep for the house you have. An AC system sets a person back 9-15k. Do you have a back deck? Have to maintain those. Water Heater and appliances cost more and more. I will not even discuss roofs and siding/paint. What about the yard?

There are a lot of factors that are taken into consideration when choosing to own a house. In the long run it is a good decision if you have that job and location you like. If you move around every 2-3 years, I would say renting is much better.

It is one of the worst market/to average pay ratios in history for buying a house right now. I hope it does not get worse, but for some reason, despite the much higher interest rates, housing costs keep going up. I was very lucky to have bought my house in 2017 before the great rise in prices and then interest rates. My house is valued at twice what I paid for it. That is insane given the short amount of time that has passed. Even if I wanted to move I would have to consider that I would lose money buying into another house at this point. So we stay where we are, which I imagine is what a lot of people are being kind of forced to do.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Haus

<Silver Donator>
13,034
50,844
You have to include return on equity, which you should be otherwise investing if renting, not just the total monthly payment. If you're renting your benchmark for comparability should be against the interest payment portion of the mortgage plus your expectations for maintenance and taxes and all adjusted for inflation and rent increase rate.

There are some really good, detailed, online calculators for making the rent/buy comparisons, and the results are often surprising.




It's the data we have. Overall house appreciation through 2018 was more or less within historical expectations. It's really the last five years that have been off the rails. Hard to know if that's a permanent change or not, but recent rates of increase can't be maintained. I don't think there's going to be a retraction, but likely a return to more normal appreciation rates.

You mention "investing if renting" but one of the key points is that in many cases the cost of home ownership, even with maintenance, taxes, and the rest, ends up lower than renting if you're looking at a window more than a couple years. As rent inflation goes up by inflation, but also property tax increases on home owners also go onto renters, maintenance of properties goes into rent as well. So take out maintenance and taxes since both pay that, and compare inflation of rent versus the stable rate of mortgage payments and there's your first delta, which pays out to the homeowner in the form of not having their living space cost increase at the same rate. Then any equity you make in the home ownership is profit above and beyond that.

I don't see a scenario where renting gives you extra equity/capital to be investing outside what you'd make on your down payment amount buying versus "first and last months rent" renting. But also they are even re-introducing that lovely concept of 1% down mortgages which ends up being little more than "First, last months, and a security/pet deposit" in some cases.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
5,315
9,019
As rent inflation goes up by inflation, but also property tax increases on home owners also go onto renters

It very much depends. The last place I rented I didn't have an increase in eight years because we were great tenants and the entire rent payment was less than the interest portion of a mortgage on the property would have been had I tried to buy it.

maintenance of properties goes into rent as well... So take out maintenance and taxes since both pay that

The point was most people don't include maintenance, particularly large and intermittent expenses like HVAC and roofing, when they compare the costs of owning vs renting. It's baked into rent but hits you on the back end as an owner and isn't part of your superficial monthly payment.

Taxes are not necessarily comparable depending on where you live. In CA, for example, property tax is set as a percentage of sale price at the time of last title transfer, which gives older title-holders a much smaller nut to pass on to tenants than a more recent buyer would pay.

I don't see a scenario where renting gives you extra equity/capital to be investing outside what you'd make on your down payment amount

Right, the difference is getting an extra 4-5% return on the down payment, plus your ongoing equity contributions. I'm not saying that renting gives you "extra" money to invest, just that for comparability you need to be looking at a rent figure that's about equal to interest + tax + insurance + maintenance, making it less than the equivalent cost of ownership by virtue of not counting the equity contribution, and then take that and invest it. Unless you're counting all those factors (and more), the comparison isn't apples to apples.

Just to pull some bogus round numbers out of a hat, let's pretend you're looking at a $3k mortgage plus $200/mo long term average maintenance. If a quarter of the $3k goes to equity, the equivalent rent might be $2450 (3000 * .75 + 200), and you should be investing an additional $750. (So $3200 outlay in both cases.) Compare the properties you can access under those two conditions. In some places and times you'll be able to rent for $2450 what you can't buy for a $3k payment. I've had three such houses over my adult life, admittedly not since 2020.

This is a simplified case and you'll need to compare relative returns on the down payment/equity, rent increases vs inflation, cost and frequency of moving, real estate transaction costs, etc. There are a lot of factors and this is why calculators like the one I linked are useful.

Of course these are only the strict financial considerations. It's worth perhaps a significant amount of money to have the stability, security, and customization that come with owning property. Doing this math will let you put a number on how much that's worth to you.

But also they are even re-introducing that lovely concept of 1% down mortgages which ends up being little more than "First, last months, and a security/pet deposit" in some cases.

This is just stupid and we all know it.
 
Last edited:

Sanrith Descartes

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
<Gold Donor>
45,070
122,620
I wonder if there is a way to abuse this 1% down payment thing and just pick up a bunch of properties for little cash out of pocket.
 

OU Ariakas

Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
<Silver Donator>
7,427
20,957
I wonder if there is a way to abuse this 1% down payment thing and just pick up a bunch of properties for little cash out of pocket.

There is not. I would give my left nut to get into an investment property for less that 20% down. You can go conventional and be between 3-5% down, but there are upper and lower limits to the finance amounts.