0
0

Rent vs Buy (the big picture)


 invite response                
2016 Mar 7, 7:52pm   4,477 views  12 comments

by Bellingham Bill   ➕follow (2)   💰tip   ignore  

Model assumptions:

Purchase Price $425,000.00
Down Payment 20%
Interest Rate 3.50%
Points 1.23%
PMI 0%
Term 30
Tax Bracket 21%
Base Deduction 6300
Savings Yield 4.0%
Insurance 0.30%
Maintenance 300.00
Property Tax 1.25%
Appreciation 4.0%

So the red columns are the rent case. "Cost Delta" is the difference between PITI etc and renting for that year. "Total Saving" is saving every dollar of the cost delta and getting 4% compounding yield on that too.

Blue/Green is buying, the green part is the stuff not dealing with principal. ACO is "annual cost of ownership" -- PITI etc. less the P, MCO is that /12.

The bottom line by this model is that after 30 more years of renting I'd have an extra $860k in the bank vs. the buy case of owning free & clear a house worth $500,000 more than that.

Comments 1 - 12 of 12        Search these comments

1   Strategist   2016 Mar 7, 8:06pm  

Bellingham Bill says

Model assumptions:

Purchase Price $425,000.00

A $425,000 home does not rent for $12,000 annual. The whole model is hard to comprehend.

2   Bellingham Bill   2016 Mar 7, 9:28pm  

this is not renting the $425,000 house, but renting a $1000 apartment instead and saving the difference.

3   turtledove   2016 Mar 7, 9:33pm  

Bellingham Bill says

this is not renting the $425,000 house, but renting a $1000 apartment instead and saving the difference.

Uh, but you're living in an apartment. And I don't want to see an apartment in OC that rents for $1,000/month. Seriously, are you suggesting that a professional family of four should be content with 800 square feet? Forever? What's the fucking point of attempting to achieve anything based on your model?

There's a lot that exists between some crappy apartment and a mansion. Those aren't the only two choices.

4   mmmarvel   2016 Mar 8, 10:16am  

turtledove says

There's a lot that exists between some crappy apartment and a mansion. Those aren't the only two choices.

I agree, AND a $425,000 house??? Okay, so I know you're talking CA - just another reason I don't live there. No way I would/I could afford that much in a mortgage. You spend that much down here and you get a REAL mansion. Look, you can still get a 2,000 plus square foot house down here for well under $200K (depending on area and age of house you can get it for under $150K).

5   Strategist   2016 Mar 8, 10:55am  

turtledove says

Bellingham Bill says

this is not renting the $425,000 house, but renting a $1000 apartment instead and saving the difference.

Uh, but you're living in an apartment. And I don't want to see an apartment in OC that rents for $1,000/month. Seriously, are you suggesting that a professional family of four should be content with 800 square feet? Forever? What's the fucking point of attempting to achieve anything based on your model?

There's a lot that exists between some crappy apartment and a mansion. Those aren't the only two choices.

Makes the whole analysis questionable when you compare apples with oranges.

6   lalalala   2016 Mar 8, 11:08am  

mmmarvel says

Look, you can still get a 2,000 plus square foot house down here

Where is here?

7   blastfrompast   2016 Mar 8, 11:13am  

you have to compare apples to apples or you are wasting your time.

saying "a home would cost $425,000 bot I could sleep in the back of my 1979 chevy van, and just crap at mcdonalds" isn't exactly a direct comparison.

Where I live, I can buy a home for $300,000 that will rent for $2000 instantly. same house comparison.

I'm ready to move, and looking for cities with better buy/rent ratio. Maybe Vegas? Jacksonville? Tampa?

8   Strategist   2016 Mar 8, 11:39am  

blastfrompast says

you have to compare apples to apples or you are wasting your time.

saying "a home would cost $425,000 bot I could sleep in the back of my 1979 chevy van, and just crap at mcdonalds" isn't exactly a direct comparison.

And the math will show it's cheaper to sleep in the old van.

9   Strategist   2016 Mar 8, 11:39am  

lalalala says

mmmarvel says

Look, you can still get a 2,000 plus square foot house down here

Where is here?

He's in Houston.

10   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 Mar 8, 11:43am  

If you want to live in a smaller place to save money, you could always find a house that is arranged so that you could rent out some space. That would be more equivalent than renting an apartment.

One other thing about owning a house is that you are your own manager. This might be a huge pain in the ass, or no problem. That depends on the person, but haven't a 'not my problem' approach to maintenance is nice for some people.

11   blastfrompast   2016 Mar 8, 11:50am  

Strategist says

8

blastfrompast says

you have to compare apples to apples or you are wasting your time.

saying "a home would cost $425,000 bot I could sleep in the back of my 1979 chevy van, and just crap at mcdonalds" isn't exactly a direct comparison.

And the math will show it's cheaper to sleep in the old van.

It's also cheaper to 24 condom packs at the 99Cent store. Who cares if you can't feel a damn thing during sex, you just saved $1 a night!!!

12   Bellingham Bill   2016 Mar 8, 7:01pm  

turtledove says

Seriously, are you suggesting that a professional family of four should be content with 800 square feet? Forever? What's the fucking point of attempting to achieve anything based on your model?

actually I tried to stack the deck in favor of the $1000 apartment, but buying is clearly superior with these numbers.

After 30 years I could have $800,000 saved by renting, or sell the house and have $1.3M, plus the better life experience of living in a nice house for 30 years.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions