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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I have zero debt except for the reasonable mortgage on my home. I occasionally indulge myself in something like a $5 coffee or a candle, but overall, I'm pretty frugal.

How do you know I wasn't spending my Christmas or birthday money, Grandpa?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European here. A lot of Americans don't appreciate the finer things in life, even though they can afford so much more. A Frenchman is fine renting, a small space too, because they want to be able to buy a niece piece of cheese and wine and fresh fish and a beautiful jacket. So if the millennials are doing what you say they are doing, kudos to them.

You really cannot compare Europe to the US. You have cradle to grave social benefits - we do not. What happens when these folks who have screwed off their entire life arrive at retirement with no money? They become a burden on their children or the state.

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.

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

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.

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.

This is why I used a down payment assistance program (in DC it's available to anyone making under $125k, assets didn't matter). Buying was CHEAPER than renting for me, which is why I did it as soon as I did. I had extra cash at closing too which went to the PMI, so I don't pay that monthly either (I used the low income tax abatement, which meant the sellers transfer taxes were paid to me and provided the extra cash). And the sellers paid my closing costs.

I came out ahead I think. And I can save more money now because my housing costs are lower than they otherwise would be.

I am shocked at this program. http://www.dchfa.org/DCHFAHome/Homebuyers/DownPaymentAssistance/tabid/276/Default.aspx

The amount is repayable ONLY if the owner sells , refinances, or no longer occupies the property within the first 5 years. No interest. Where does this money come from?
Another gag me http://mmp.maryland.gov/Pages/Downpayment.aspx

I suppose all of this comes out of my tax dollars. No more generosity for my kids. On their own since I now realize I pay twice-via taxes and direct. I wasn't aware of the breadth of BS- the DC one even mentions ridiculous amounts of DP like 3.5 or 5 % as might even be required.

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.

This is why I used a down payment assistance program (in DC it's available to anyone making under $125k, assets didn't matter). Buying was CHEAPER than renting for me, which is why I did it as soon as I did. I had extra cash at closing too which went to the PMI, so I don't pay that monthly either (I used the low income tax abatement, which meant the sellers transfer taxes were paid to me and provided the extra cash). And the sellers paid my closing costs.

I came out ahead I think. And I can save more money now because my housing costs are lower than they otherwise would be.

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.

This is why I used a down payment assistance program (in DC it's available to anyone making under $125k, assets didn't matter). Buying was CHEAPER than renting for me, which is why I did it as soon as I did. I had extra cash at closing too which went to the PMI, so I don't pay that monthly either (I used the low income tax abatement, which meant the sellers transfer taxes were paid to me and provided the extra cash). And the sellers paid my closing costs.

I came out ahead I think. And I can save more money now because my housing costs are lower than they otherwise would be.

Anonymous wrote:I know a bunch of Millennials who have bought houses. I think the reason it's not happening yet is that Millennials tend to live in cities where the homes are more expensive, so they are just buying them later. Once they start having kids (also later) I think you'll start to see more settling down.

Signed,
Millennial home owner