AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
The assumption that buying is preferable to renting is so ingrained in our national real estate psyche, that to suggest otherwise could result in someone questioning your financial, if not actual, sanity. The New York Times did some serious nationwide number crunching, however, and is concluding that renters fared better than buyers over the last two years. The turnabout is the result of buyers facing higher monthly costs than renters, while losing money on their investments as home prices declined. The paper then goes on to discuss the necessary conditions for perceived order in the universe to return, when buying is again the smart move.
Over the next five years, which is about the average amount of time recent buyers have remained in their homes, prices in the Los Angeles area would have to rise more than 5 percent a year for a typical buyer there to do better than a renter. The same is true in Phoenix, Las Vegas, the New York region, Northern California and South Florida. In the Boston and Washington areas, the break-even point is about 4 percent.In one of those clearcut occasions when it is better to read the online version of the Times rather than the print version, there is this great interactive calculator that graphically shows the trade-offs between renting and buying based on a number of criteria the reader can adjust. The print version has just one static example that it snapshots at three different points in time.“House prices have to fall more before housing becomes a clear buy again,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, a research company that helped conduct the analysis. “These markets aren’t as overvalued as they were a year ago or two years ago, but they’re still unfriendly. And that’s one of the reasons the market is still soft — people realize it’s not a bargain.”
On his finance and economics blog, Felix Salmon admires the Times' effort in constructing its model, but also looks at some of the underlying assumptions involved and questions the paper's points of emphasis.
To read the article, the main variable in determining whether or not you should rent or buy is the amount by which property prices are going to rise in future. Most of the calculations hold everything else constant, and then wonder how many years it will take you to break even given different rates of property-price increase.Both pieces are interesting reading and practically required, since there are few things New Yorkers like to talk about more than real estate. You'll probably be quizzed on it this weekend!But spend a bit of time fiddling around with the calculator, and you realize it's not nearly as simple as that. For instance, the NYT's calculations have a default rate of rent increase of just 4% per year. That seems low to me, given the fact that rent increases haven't remotely kept up with price increases in most of the country. If the two come closer into line with each other, some of that might come from prices going down – but a large chunk of it might come from rents going up. It's hard in the rent vs buy calculator to account for the risk that your rent will suddenly go up by 15% next year.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This doesn't make any sense to me. Let's say your rent is $1200 per month, or you buy a place for $250,000 with a decent interest rate you'll also be paying around $1200 per month. So for renting for 5 years with no yearly increase you are paying $72,000, same thing for your mortgage. After five years you move out. If you are renting, guess what, that $72,000 is gone, no matter how you slice it. If you own your place and sell it for your original purchase price, you just broke even. You'd have to sell the place you bought for $250,000 for $178,000 to lose the $72,000 you would have lost renting. I know I oversimplified here, but what am I missing?
"That seems low to me, given the fact that rent increases haven't remotely kept up with price increases in most of the country."
Doesn't he mean, that seems high to me?
Without fully examining the intricacies of the model the Times put together, it would take into account the fact that even if your rent and mortgage payments were the same, the majority of the mortgage payments to the bank would be interest expense, leaving the amount of principal you would still owe the bank if you sold your house relatively undiminished. Also, they're calculating the significant costs incurred while buying and selling a house as well as the additional expense of property taxes.
Chris, you are forgetting property and school taxes. And home repairs.
I'm not a real estate guru, but I believe you're missing the fact that one won't find a place in the same area for $250,000. Realistically, it's going to be significantly higher, especially if you're looking in or near a higher demand location such as New York City. Otherwise, the rent vs. buy argument is moot.
You also have to take into account the extra costs of ownership, which are more significant than people realize. They include home insurance, maintenance, major repairs and improvements, heating/cooling, and water.
One, a place that costs $250,000 is not the equivalent of a place that rents for $1200. The equivalent would be a place that rents for $600, or buys for $500k in this market.
Two, you're not factoring in other costs of ownership. If you're renting and someone breaks (lets say your window gets broken, or your air conditioner breaks down), your landlord covers that cost if you rent. If you own, you're on your own. Maintenance costs in general are born by the owner, the renter doesn't pay separately for maintenance. Property taxes are paid by the homeowner, separately from the mortgage payment. The renter doesn't pay that. Then there are condo/homeowner association fees. Again, renters don't pay those. Most homeowners these days do.
So, getting back to your example, lets split the difference. Lets say that you pay $1200/mo for mortgage, someone else pays $1200/mo rent. The $1200/mo owner also pays $5k/yr in property taxes. And $100/mo in association dues. And $1000 a year in maintenance costs. Not to mention higher insurance costs. In total, about $22,000 a year. The renter pays $14,400 a year. Flat.
So lets say you sell in 5 years. Alright, time to get something back. Well, lets say your appreciation was 2% a year on a $350k home. First your costs - $22,000 times 5 is $110,000. Your appreciation amounts to about $25k. On a 30 year fixed, most of your mortgage is interest over that first 5 years. Lets be generous and say you paid $10k in principle. That means your net costs are $75,000. The renter paid $72,000 over that same time period.
Ooops. You lost. If you're staying put for a long time, buying always wins over renting. Over the short run, in this day and age, not so much.
I'm assuming the 250K is the amount that was put down, not the entire cost of the house? Otherwise the example given makes no sense.
Another factor is what do you have in your bank account at year 0. If its exactly 250K, then by using it to buy a house you've just tied that money up, forget alternative investments, and its difficult to get back if you have an emergency. If its less, then you have a pretty big problem right there if you try to use that money to buy a house.
Props to the analyses above. Couldn't have said it better myself...
So I'll contribute a salient anecdote:
I know a couple: one is a dentist and the other is a cardiologist. They can't afford an apartment in Manhattan worth buying. That should tell you something. (And I don't mean that the cardiologist should've married an I-Banker) ;-)
Right. And if you happen to play in the Madonna / Ashton Kutcher / Gwyneth Paltrow neighborhood, it doesn't really matter, because what you paid $9M for last year you'll sell this year for $10M. This is regardless of whatever the hell else is going on in the city, state, area, or country, and the hell with renters and other "little people".
Worth mentioning that owning a home comes with a backend 6% sales charge aka real estate agent commission. And while your rent can jump 15% in one year, so can your property taxes. My parents just got whacked in Fairfield County.
[10] Very good point, and a home purchase can include an expense level of around 4%, which winds up being probably equal to that 6% on the backend, given the time-value of money and the fact that the latter is on an appreciated property. Coming and going, homeowners really have do take a shot. Of course, my sympathies for anyone selling a six- or seven-figure home can only extend so far . . . :)
"I know I oversimplified here, but what am I missing?"
the fact that you pay interest on your note. you assumed a zero interest loan.
go play with bankrate dot com calculators
for the first 7 years most of your payment is interest.
so by 2014, you still owe 228,000 and this is paying 1600 a month. if you bank that $400 a month (1600 to buy vs 1200 to rent). thats $4800X7= like $33,000
so you are already ahead by renting.
How are some of you affording the down payment, assuming you're young-ish?
Oh wait, that's right......
YOUR GODDAMN PARENTS.
So stop whining, you have a pretty sweet deal.