I know why Millenials can't afford houses and pay off their student loans..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

Yes, but this downpayment was only 20 percent and is a small portion of the money I save/invest. I need to diversify as I don't want all my money in the market. I also want a paid off house in retirement or in my case my late 40s. I also wanted room to grow into and didn't want to have to keep moving from apartment to apartment. I want to be locked into a school for my children and to be able to make my home my own. Life isn't only about money.

I get that maybe renting would be better financially. But that's not what I wanted to do. We invest over 12-15k each month in the market and I'm fine having a mortgage on top of that and having a nice place for my family to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

How was I ignorant? I pu 50K down. I paid less each month than if I rented. If I sell, I will walk away with 11 times what I put in. If someone is stupid, it is not me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Every blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. I can't stop LOLing over the comment above turning $50K into $550K, a 1100% return!!! LOL. Reminds me of all those dot com millionaires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Every blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. I can't stop LOLing over the comment above turning $50K into $550K, a 1100% return!!! LOL. Reminds me of all those dot com millionaires.

How is it not an 1100% return on my investment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Much deleted.
Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Just to be clear, my life time earnings are about 2.3 million. My net worth today -- all investments, everything....is 1.4 million. It wasn't luck. It was careful long term planning.

Buying a house was done to lock in expenses, mostly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Every blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. I can't stop LOLing over the comment above turning $50K into $550K, a 1100% return!!! LOL. Reminds me of all those dot com millionaires.

How is it not an 1100% return on my investment?

pp here:

ROI is usually expressed as a percentage and is typically used for personal financial decisions, to compare a company's profitability or to compare the efficiency of different investments. The return on investment formula is: ROI = (Net Profit / Cost of Investment) x 100.

Net profit is 500 k (equity - initial cost). Cost of investment is 50K. ROI is 500/50x100=1000 (i earlier forgot to subtract the initial 50K).

Note this logic only works because I would have had to pay for housing -- but the monthly cost of living here was less than the rent.

If I bought the house and rented it for the 1500/month, it would definitely be a 1000% ROI over 18 years. Only difference is I lived in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Every blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. I can't stop LOLing over the comment above turning $50K into $550K, a 1100% return!!! LOL. Reminds me of all those dot com millionaires.

How is it not an 1100% return on my investment?

Are you planning on selling a house without any transaction costs and also never living anywhere else ever again...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Much deleted.
Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Just to be clear, my life time earnings are about 2.3 million. My net worth today -- all investments, everything....is 1.4 million. It wasn't luck. It was careful long term planning.

Buying a house was done to lock in expenses, mostly.

Maybe if you had invested elsewhere, you would have made more than $120K/yr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you look at buying houses, it is best to think of it from a cash-flow perspective.

Lets say, after taxes, the house is neutral cost compared with an apartment (I do not know if this is the case today). In 30 years, no matter what happens to the price, you have paid off the mortgage. You have value.

Now, while the price of the rental usually goes up, the mortgage is constant. So, as things inflate, the percentage of my income (which inflates) going to housing drops. Today, it is 9% of my income, down from 29%....

So dumb. Do you think people who don't buy houses just let their down payment sit and gather 0% interest? Your mortgage might be constant but the tradeoff is that you are drowning in opportunity costs. There is nothing stupider than investing 30%+ of your net worth in a single asset. Most people are better off renting and investing the down payment in REITs to hedge for real estate appreciation.

I put 20% down. 50K. Lets say I put in in the S & P 500 based fund. O n the day I pulled the money out, the fund, S & P 600 was about 1335 on the day bought the house. Today, it is 2270. So it would be 85000. By comparison, in those intervening years, I have paid the mortgage down 75K. If the house value had remained constant, the 50K would now be 125K in equity instead of 86K if it was invested in SP500. Note that my cash flow was actually better than if I was in an apartment on day 1.

Now, if I rented, my rent would be about 3K today, doubling since I bought my house. The cumulative difference would be about 240K extra for rent vs mortgage (mortgage after taxes). Granted, I have had to do some maintenance. That is probably on the order of 3K per year, or 54K.

Factoring it all in, I have paid out 190K less owning the home. If my house has been constant value, I am 190K+125K-86K = 229K ahead owning vs. renting over 18 years. That is my daughters college for 4 years.

The kicker is my house, which I paid 275 for is now worth about 700K. So, that decision to buy has netted me an extra 229:+425K, or 654,000. That is real money.

So, making the decision to buy put

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a REIT is.

You can't live in a REIT.

No kidding. You live in a rental with the flexibility to relocate whenever you want without suffering massive transaction costs and earn interest from real estate appreciation without having to invest an idiotic proportion of your net worth into one asset. Buying is for suckers who bought into the marketing that caused the last recession. Millennials are smart to keep renting until they are ready to settle down. Threads like this just confirm that the Millennials bashers are just holier than thou whiners who are too stupid to realize how dumb they are.

So even though my mortgage is less than my rent was you think I should be renting instead? Because if I were renting I'd have even less money to invest in the market (ex in a reit). I have to live somewhere.

How would you have less money if you rented? Did you not put a down payment down on your house...?

May I suggest some reading on cash flow. You put cash down. 20%. But, that money would be invested somewhere. In my example, I had the 50K in a index 500 fund. The 50K downpayment would grow if I invested, sure. To 86K or so.

By comparison, I am living in a decent house in a good location for (after tax break) 1400/month. In 1999, when I bought, I was paying 1500/month for a 2 br appt. Today, that would be close to 3K/month. So, each month, I am paying 1500 less today than if I bought. So, cash flow is better for me when owning.

I tied up 50K. But, because the mortgage cost me nothing (compared to rent), and I have paid it down, I leveraged my 50K into 550K, or 11x ROI on the 50K.

You see, over the long haul, owning a house is good, providing you know where you want to live. I am happy in the house I have lived in for almost 18 years.

Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Every blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. I can't stop LOLing over the comment above turning $50K into $550K, a 1100% return!!! LOL. Reminds me of all those dot com millionaires.

How is it not an 1100% return on my investment?

Are you planning on selling a house without any transaction costs and also never living anywhere else ever again...?

Where I live after I sell does not impact the return on investment. Transaction costs do. But, they can be minimized (if I sell directly to a builder, for example, who wants the lot (990% of my properties value is the lot)).

When I sell the house, it will be when I retire. I will go to a low cost of living area. Probably when my child is finished with college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Much deleted.
Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Just to be clear, my life time earnings are about 2.3 million. My net worth today -- all investments, everything....is 1.4 million. It wasn't luck. It was careful long term planning.

Buying a house was done to lock in expenses, mostly.

Maybe if you had invested elsewhere, you would have made more than $120K/yr.

Invested elsewhere would not have given me higher income. That was from education and my hard work. It averaged 120K, but was much lower earlier, and higher today.
Most people do not make 200K per year right out of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Much deleted.
Omg, you are so financially ignorant I don't even know where to start, lololol...

Someone living with a 1400 a month mortgage doesn't seem ignorant. Seems like this person made a good decision. I'm sure they also have investments outside of this house!

Just to be clear, my life time earnings are about 2.3 million. My net worth today -- all investments, everything....is 1.4 million. It wasn't luck. It was careful long term planning.

Buying a house was done to lock in expenses, mostly.

Maybe if you had invested elsewhere, you would have made more than $120K/yr.

Invested elsewhere would not have given me higher income. That was from education and my hard work. It averaged 120K, but was much lower earlier, and higher today.
Most people do not make 200K per year right out of school.

The more you keep responding, the more I am positive that you do not understand the concept of opportunity cost.