How houses eat money

[rec7]

I wanted to share this story with the rest of you to see what you think. I thought he raised some great points, that many of us have never thought of. The scary part is he wrote this at the top of the boom.




How Houses Eat Money - WSJ.com

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rec7 I wanted to share this story with the rest of you to see what you think. I thought he raised some great points, that many of us have never thought of. The scary part is he wrote this at the top of the boom. How Houses Eat Money - WSJ.com

I think he makes a pretty good financial case for owning a home, if you can stay put for a while. With much of his cost accounted for he is a bit ahead. Maybe if routine maintenence were added he would be about breakeven. But as he points put, he has paid no rent all these years. So in effect he traded his own homeowner labor, yard care, etc for rent.

I still wouldn't want a house, but for most people it probably sounds pretty good.

Ha

[rec7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I think he makes a pretty good financial case for owning a home, if you can stay put for a while. With much of his cost accounted for he is a bit ahead. Maybe if routine maintenence were added he would be about breakeven. But as he points put, he has paid no rent all these years. So in effect he traded his own homeowner labor, yard care, etc for rent. Ha

That is what I was thinking but I would like to add one point. What if he had around 450k in CD in 1992 that would pay 5% or better. That would produce about $22,500 so if he could rent for less than that he would be ahead.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rec7 That is what I was thinking but I would like to add one point. What if he had around 450k in CD in 1992 that would pay 5% or better. That would produce about $22,500 so if he could rent for less than that he would be ahead.

True, but to account closely for each of these we would have to go year by year. He didn't invest the full $450k in 1992; he invested most of it over time. Likewise, he would have paid rent year by year, likely increasing each year. You could set up two NPV series and compare them.

It is easy enough to figure out, if this kind of thing would sway someone to make one choice over another.

Ha

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rec7 The scary part is he wrote this at the top of the boom.

I think that is the key point and that it appears he put a great deal of money into the house. Forget about what he put into it - he bought a $442K house at a high point. That he put 130 into a 165 house and time frame for analysis really puts into questions his point of view.


Combine that with my $165,000 purchase price and the $130,000 in home improvements, and I am up to $442,000 -- not much below my home's $500,000 current value. The picture would be even uglier if I counted my initial closing costs, routine maintenance expenses and annual homeowner's insurance, to say nothing of the innumerable hours of my own time that I have sunk into the place. And while I have no intention of selling, that day will come. Imagine I sold today, paying a 5% real-estate commission. After enriching the brokers involved, I would net $475,000, perilously close to my total cost.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex I think that is the key point and that it appears he put a great deal of money into the house. Forget about what he put into it - he bought a $442K house at a high point. That he put 130 into a 165 house and time frame for analysis really puts into questions his point of view.

What does this mean?

[Sam]

I felt he spent way too much on improvement. I have not done the calculation, but his property tax and mortgage interest also appears high for a 165K house.

[MasterBlaster]

The author needs to subtract off the imputed rent value that he derived from living in the house from the expenses. That just may change the numbers to favor ownership.

The author also makes a great case as to why you don't ever want to put too much, in terms of improvements, in a modest house. Because you'll never recoup your costs.

This same logic goes for "classic" cars that you want to restore. Do it for the love of it, knowing all along that you'll never recoup your time and money.

[tiuxiu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster The author needs to subtract off the imputed rent value that he derived from living in the house from the expenses.

First thing I thought when reading it too.

He's comparing the financial gain of owning a home to investing while living in a cardboard box.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiuxiu He's comparing the financial gain of owning a home to investing while living in a cardboard box.

Another rational financial assessment of an issue that's fraught with emotion.

I don't think any renter is going to invest their time/energy on improving their space any more than they're able to take it with them. But we all want to be able to have living spaces like we see on HGTV, and the best way to achieve that is to own them.

IMO renting has an element of duress. Even when I was taking care of a property for my landlord there was the unspoken sentiment of "If I do this for you then you won't jerk the place out from under us, right?"

We bought our first Hawaii home at the peak of the market and over the 20 years it appreciated at the rate of inflation, although with a lot of volatility. However we bought our second "dream home" at the pit of a decade-long price slide and it's more than doubled in value over the last eight years, even despite the beginning of another retrenchment. Can't achieve that type of leverage by renting. Of course you can't lose money that fast by renting either.

Landlords frequently compare their rental income to long-term CD rates. However the long-term CD rates seem to change a lot faster than rental rates. We've been averaging a bit over 4.5% cash-on-cash return, which looked like a loser up through 2007. Today, however, it's quite satisfactory. Can't do that by renting, either.

[charlie]

My Dad was an oil/gas land man during WWII and, by necessity, we
followed the oil play living in sub-standard rent houses and trailer courts
during many of my formative years. It wasn't until we finally settled
in Wichita Falls, Texas after the war that we bought a home and put down roots.

Needless to say, that experience has colored my attitude toward the
"rent or buy" question ever since. IMHO, a family man with a stable
job, marriage and children should buy the best house he can afford
and enjoy God's blessings. The issue, to me, is more about quality of
life than about money.

Cheers,

charlie

[Koolau]

Can't add much to the rent vs buy argument that's already been discussed. Y'all have done a good job on the pros/cons etc. I've done both when I thought it was to my advantage. Sometimes each way was a net winner and sometimes each was a loser. Still, as I look back, there were other factors which influenced my decisions other than pure economic advantage of rent vs. own.

Let me throw in another opinion (not my own original but it is now coloring my thinking). Burns and Kotlikoff's book THE COMING GENERATIONAL STORM makes a case for home ownership based on the imputed income of a paid-for house. In essence, your house pays your rent so you do not need to earn money (and be taxed on earnings, local, state, SS, Fed, etc.). Other investments' earnings (not all) are taxed in some form.

Why would this imputed, untaxed earning be so valuable? If as B and K believe, taxes can only go up to cover (this is before TARP and all the other recovery programs) SS to boomers, Medicare, Medicade, etc., then "tax free" income is king.

Naturally, their premise is based on several things (big one being taxes on the rise - now there's a stretch!) but they make a good case in the book. Naturally, YMMV

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau Let me throw in another opinion (not my own original but it is now coloring my thinking). Burns and Kotlikoff's book THE COMING GENERATIONAL STORM makes a case for home ownership based on the imputed income of a paid-for house. In essence, your house pays your rent so you do not need to earn money (and be taxed on earnings, local, state, SS, Fed, etc.). Other investments' earnings (not all) are taxed in some form. Why would this imputed, untaxed earning be so valuable? If as B and K believe, taxes can only go up to cover (this is before TARP and all the other recovery programs) SS to boomers, Medicare, Medicade, etc., then "tax free" income is king.

This is, to me, one of the primary driving factors for us to buy a small, cheap house with cash. The ability to live on as little income as possible in an environment where taxes are likely to rise and more means-testing is likely in health care and Social Security. So the more we can configure our lives to be "livable" on lower income, the more survivable our future.

But please don't give Washington any ideas about taxing the "imputed income" of people with paid-off homes... the last thing I need is to pay tax on $500-600 a month representing the rental value of our home.

[mathjak107]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau Can't add much to the rent vs buy argument that's already been discussed. Y'all have done a good job on the pros/cons etc. I've done both when I thought it was to my advantage. Sometimes each way was a net winner and sometimes each was a loser. Still, as I look back, there were other factors which influenced my decisions other than pure economic advantage of rent vs. own. Let me throw in another opinion (not my own original but it is now coloring my thinking). Burns and Kotlikoff's book THE COMING GENERATIONAL STORM makes a case for home ownership based on the imputed income of a paid-for house. In essence, your house pays your rent so you do not need to earn money (and be taxed on earnings, local, state, SS, Fed, etc.). Other investments' earnings (not all) are taxed in some form. Why would this imputed, untaxed earning be so valuable? If as B and K believe, taxes can only go up to cover (this is before TARP and all the other recovery programs) SS to boomers, Medicare, Medicade, etc., then "tax free" income is king. Naturally, their premise is based on several things (big one being taxes on the rise - now there's a stretch!) but they make a good case in the book. Naturally, YMMV

its no different then a landlord who buys a 2 family and says he lives free...noooooo hes paying the rent hes not getting by living in the apartment...... everything costs ya no matter how you look at it.... buying a house and living in it is like a coke dealer snorting his own product he paid for.... suppose you live elsewhere and rent the house out that you have money invested in... would you say your living for free?

[RunningBum]

Another error he made in math is not counting any of his other deductions he got to take instead of the standard deduction. He calculated the difference as

(mortgage + prop taxes) - standard deduction

In reality, it should be

(mortgage + prop taxes + state income tax + other dedcutions) - (standard deduction)

[NW-Bound]

While a house may become a money sink hole if one is not careful, I never split hair on trying to figure out the cost of owning vs. renting. We needed a place to raise a family, and once we decided to stay in one place (has been more than 20 years now), a rented house just did not feel the same. So, that's that.

We slightly overbought at first, but then grew into it. Once we become empty-nesters, may do something about it. Or we might just stay put (I would have to change my screen-name to reflect the fact I have given up the Puget Sound pipe dream).

[mathjak107]

fuuny i had written something very similiar during a discussion on another site........................................ although we call a home an appreciating asset its part of a much larger picture called your overall housing costs... because you live in it these costs are all paid by you and accumulate over a lifetime unlike rental property or investment property which you pay off the income . . the rise of the house in value over time merely offets the giant lifetime expenses of all the costs a homeowner has for the priveledge of owning that home..... your taxes, mortgage interest, repairs,renovation,maintaince,landscaping,insuranc e ,the gardner,the snow plow guy, the list goes on and on.

a lifetime in housing costs are really measured in who lost the least the buyer or the renter, not who made the most as those expenses whether you rent or buy usually eclipse the value of home appreciation over a lifetime. it never stops accumulating even if you sell a home and buy another... like rent just keep adding it all up over a lifetime.

soooooooo if your buying a house think of it as a consumption item, not an investment, think of it as a collector does of fine art, or your jewelry. its something you use and consume and costs you money. the fact a home rises may or may not mitigate the expenses to put you ahead of renting

buy a home for all the things a home can give you (good or bad)

the joy of owning something
doing as you please
the security of owning a payed off home
relatively fixed costs compared to renting

the fun of renovating and changing

etc

while technically a renter appears to be at a dis-advantage because hes not buying anything with his rent that may not be true in alot of areas or situations . here in the greater new york area the cost between renting and buying initially is 1/3 to 1/2 less a month and no massive down payment... it takes about a decade for the rent to equal the costs of buying at the 2 to 3% a year rent increases. each year though the renters advantage grows smaller and smaller as the rent goes up . all though just real estate taxes in alot of areas see bigger jumps the costs are offset with tax deductions on some expenses so its all about what the renter did with the money saved each month and down payment money that determines most of how a renter does.

you cant compare renting vs buying unless you have the renter putting equal amounts of money as well into an appreciating asset. thats where most comparisons fool us, they rarely do this. historically equities have outpaced home appreciation by 2x with alot less expenses in the early years of renting.

i can tell you because home real estate appreciates long term just above the rate of inflation in most markets a person who invests the money he planned to buy with and the money he saves each month compared with buying in nothing more than a mix of diversified index funds stands a great chance of coming out further ahead ...

infact i can say with my own expierience that if you were going to pay cash for the house like i did when i bought my house back in 1987 in queens ny and instead put that money in that same mix of funds (i did that also) i can tell you that today you can subtract out all the rent you would have paid for all those years and still have enough left to buy over 2 houses .....

you have to take a step back and stop looking at just one aspect of your overall cost of housing which is where everyone fixates THE HOUSE
and look at the total costs over a lifetime to know if you spent less renting or buying..... chances are they both cost you and took money out of the ole piggy bank and not made you richer .... housing costs are like food costs, they are expenses not gains

for a eye opening idea of expenses look at only 2 of the many components of expenses a homeowner has , taxes and mortgage interest,,, those two alone usually need the house to appreciate at least 3x and probley more in 30 years just to clear the after tax deduction amount you paid in...

most people pull out one piece of the puzzlel the house cost and what its worth without looking at the big picture namely a lifetime of housing costs and merely look at one aspect without the other parts... since we dont know how much future appreciation will be, we dont know rent increases, we dont know your future expenses or how many times you will sell a house and buy another and incurr more costs there is no answer.. in fact the biggest part on the renters behalf who chose to invest else where and rent is we dont know future market returns..... your trying to predict an outcome thats impossible... we dont know who will spend more in housing costs when all is taken into consideration.

picture it as if you were an investor.. you made big bucks on one investment (the house) but all your other investments tanked.... overall your down , the big gains of the one investment merely mitigated the overall loses


the jury is still out as far as whether the age old debate, is it better to buy or rent financially ?... there is no answer and probley never will be

[OAG]

Imputed rent cost - Opportunity cost = Close to Zero (in most cases). I know "it depends".

[target2019]

Owning an average house means breaking even. That has been my experience. I think of it as preservation of capital, rather than an opportunity to strike it rich.

[rec7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by target2019 Owning an average house means breaking even. That has been my experience. I think of it as preservation of capital, rather than an opportunity to strike it rich.

I think you have a key point, an average house or small house would be best at least in the lower cost areas.