patrick.net

thomas.wong1986 says

See the article i posted earlier... how about this.. I sell you my Yahoo or Ariba stock (2000 shares) for say $250/ share. I pocket $2.5M and buy myself a home at what ever price the seller wanted because its your money.. and you lose your shirt as you watch your stock value fall to $10 per share.. thats what happened in SFBA in 1999. Bernie Madoff would be proud of me.

I ask this sincerely, are we having a mathematical discussion or an ideological one?

Hindsight and math tells me that buying in the 90s and holding until now was a wise decision.

zesta says

I ask this sincerely, are we having a mathematical discussion or an ideological one?

You had to be here to understand the fundamentals in buying a house in SFBA didnt exist. It was all "free money" from other peoples savings.
Look... you give me $2M in cash I a will give you shares of Yahoo with a "current" value of $300 per share. If that stock dropped to $10 per share, which it did.. well too bad!

Do the math!

zesta says

Hindsight and math tells me that buying in the 90s and holding until now was a wise decision.

1992 was very different from 1999. Your question was regarding 1999, and was a bad idea... 1992 buying was based on more sober and realistic matrix based on incomes, vs 1999 which was based on free money.. The free money era wasnt sustainable! so what ever prices was cooked up wouldnt last.

They can build more houses and apartments. The govt can issue ever more and more bonds and interest rates can be so low that the return is actually a negative yield. So, the supply of these "assets" can increase forever.
The shares of AAPL are not going to be increased, they will be decreased shortly. Apple will buy back $10 billion worth of AAPL shares.
Other stocks are a similar story.
If you want to capture inflation, buy a house. If you want to appreciate capital and beat inflation, buy stocks.

clambo says

If you want to appreciate capital and beat inflation, buy stocks.

Just not in RIM...

thomas.wong1986 says

zesta says

Hindsight and math tells me that buying in the 90s and holding until now was a wise decision.

1992 buying was based on more sober and realistic matrix based on incomes, vs 1999 which was based on free money.. The free money era wasnt sustainable! so what ever prices was cooked up wouldnt last.

clambo says

If you want to capture inflation, buy a house. If you want to appreciate capital and beat inflation, buy stocks.

My math tells me that the price increase due to "free money from the internet bubble" has been sustainable for the last 13 years and counting. Perhaps there are factors other than "free money from the internet bubble" that affect housing prices.

I generally agree with the comment about housing following inflation and stocks appreciating capital.

But... since 1999 by how much has the DJIA beat inflation?
since 1999 by how much have SF home prices beat inflation?

Now in 2012, if you had the opportunity of using hindsight in 1999, which was the better financial decision?

zesta says

Now in 2012, if you had the opportunity of using hindsight in 1999, which was the better financial decision?

1997 was the last year it made sense before doubling by late 1999.
No, it didnt make sense in 1999.

It was fairly clear by first half of 2000 what was forecasted for the next 5 years in the local economy would not happen. as such if you lived here back then.. it was very similar to late 89s and therefore ripe for a correction.

zesta says

since 1999 by how much have SF home prices beat inflation?

As history has shown, home prices cannot beat inflation, since incomes increases are also tied to inflation by many industries. That was the whole point with Shillers study. Your factoring in bubble prices as some rational event, which it wasnt.

zesta says

Perhaps there are factors other than "free money from the internet bubble" that affect housing prices.

factor in the irrational buying, and hype mania many from the East coast, what is there left.. what could you say about the local SF economy which has been around for over 50 years now, booming tech industry, limited land, high demand, etc etc

so how is that different from the 70s,80s, early 90s.

If you were going to see an over the top expansion of prices, it certainly made more sense having it in the 80s vs late 90s/00s.
so why didnt it happen ? we certainly didnt have the hype then compared to the hype we started to see in post 1999.

Historically what's the longest duration of a speculative bubble?
Can a speculative bubble last 15 years?

and...

why can't I get you to answer this direct question:?

Now in 2012, if you had the opportunity of using hindsight in 1999, which was the better financial decision?
A. Buying a house in SF
B. Investing in DJIA
C. Putting it in the bank

D. Gold

zesta says

I'm curious what metricslas Patrick used to determine it wasn't the right time to buy in 1999 and if those metrics have been adjusted in hindsight now in 2012?

For example if the 3x income or annual rent / purchase price = 3% metrics didn't work out for in 1999 have they been revised?

These have been my concerns as well. It seems that these "rules of thumb" are too often taken as gospel and people assume they will rigidly apply, uniformly to all areas in the US.

And its not just people looking in overperformers like SF that get hurt by this. My understanding is even at the height of the bubble, some rules of thumb said it was OK to buy in detroit. Yet, even with those assurances, detroit prices still went down about 50%

Its like that old saying, if you flip a coin 20 times and each comes up heads, what are the odds that the next flip is tails:

(a) 50/50

or

(b) you are playing with a 2 headed coin and you dont realize it.

If after 13 years of flipping that coin patrick is coming up tails every time, perhaps its time to re-inspect it...

wthrfrk80 says

D. Gold

I had a feeling someone would pick secret option D.
Let's see... Gold is about 575% higher now.. You're 100k would be 575k. Pretty good.

Back to my paper napkin math:

If one would have bought a 500k house in SF with 20% down @ 7% in 1999 with a 15 year mortgage, one would now have almost 400k in principal + 100k downpayment + 450k appreciation (thomas' graph above shows about price almost doubling in SF from 99-2011) - 250k interest - 75k prop taxes -100k maint/ins = 525k

Additionally, one can add rent they would have spent in that 13 years. ($1500/mo *12 * 13) = 234k

The best part of it is that in two more years you'll be able to live in it while only paying prop taxes, maint and ins.

What will your 22 lbs of gold provide for you other than an expensive paperweight?

Furthermore, for all the moaning about the 6% commission a realtor takes (and I agree it's excessive) compare that to the capital-gains tax you'd pay on your gold. Now THAT's a lot of $$$.

zesta says

What will your 22 lbs of gold provide for you other than an expensive paperweight?

I wouldn't trade 22lbs of gold for any of the middle class houses in SF. As the wood ages and the floors slope, my 22lbs of solid wealth would keep separating me from the house poor folks. Don't knock gold, it is the only thing that has done anything positive in the last decade.

zesta says

Furthermore, for all the moaning about the 6% commission a realtor takes (and I agree it's excessive) compare that to the capital-gains tax you'd pay on your gold. Now THAT's a lot of $$$.

There is a big difference! The 6% is on purchase price (no profit). The capital-gains tax is on profit (no purchase price)! Huge difference. Bigger than the 800 sqft million dollar homes in SF for crying out loud.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

zesta says

Furthermore, for all the moaning about the 6% commission a realtor takes (and I agree it's excessive) compare that to the capital-gains tax you'd pay on your gold. Now THAT's a lot of $$$.

There is a big difference! The 6% is on purchase price (no profit). The capital-gains tax is on profit (no purchase price)! Huge difference. Bigger than the 800 sqft million dollar homes in SF for crying out loud.

Well in this particular case...

1m * 6% = 60k
475k * 28% = 133k

zesta says

Now in 2012, if you had the opportunity of using hindsight in 1999, which was the better financial decision?
A. Buying a house in SF
B. Investing in DJIA
C. Putting it in the bank

unless someone gave you several hundred thousand dollars to over $1M FREE, you were not in the housing market in 1999.

this was not a market for joe 6 pack or anyone else... thats the whole point of the article i posted above from early 2000 published in local Palo Alto papers.

there was not much of a choice you had! all you had after 2001 was some crazy loan! and a hope we would from 2000 to 2010 see another tech boom .. and crazy valuations with new IPOs.

thomas.wong1986 says

zesta says

Now in 2012, if you had the opportunity of using hindsight in 1999, which was the better financial decision?

A. Buying a house in SF

B. Investing in DJIA

C. Putting it in the bank

unless someone gave you several hundred thousand dollars to over $1M FREE, you were not in the housing market in 1999.

this was not a market for joe 6 pack or anyone else... thats the whole point of the article i posted above from early 2000 published in local Palo Alto papers.

there was not much of a choice you had! all you had after 2001 was some crazy loan! and a hope we would from 2000 to 2010 see another tech boom .. and crazy valuations with new IPOs.

I'll admit I read your article, but I thought you were arguing that home prices after '97 were fueled with help from internet bubble. Why couldn't someone have saved $100k or so by 1999 even without investing in stocks? or maybe sold a house in the midwest for 100k profit in 1997 and used that money to buy a house in SF in 1999? Is that impossible? Maybe I still don't get what you mean.

zesta says

I'll admit I read your article, but I thought you were arguing that home prices after '97 were fueled with help from internet bubble. Why couldn't someone have saved $100k or so by 1999 even without investing in stocks? or maybe sold a house in the midwest for 100k profit in 1997 and used that money to buy a house in SF in 1999? Is that impossible? Maybe I still don't get what you mean.

Extremes... everyone was investing in tech stocks.. and on the other side cashing out free money. By 1997 homes barely broke even from their prior 1989 peak. So there wasnt much profits one could have used to move up or else.

thomas.wong1986 says

zesta says

I'll admit I read your article, but I thought you were arguing that home prices after '97 were fueled with help from internet bubble. Why couldn't someone have saved $100k or so by 1999 even without investing in stocks? or maybe sold a house in the midwest for 100k profit in 1997 and used that money to buy a house in SF in 1999? Is that impossible? Maybe I still don't get what you mean.

Extremes... everyone was investing in tech stocks.. and on the other side cashing out free money. By 1997 homes barely broke even from their prior 1989 peak. So there wasnt much profits one could have used to move up or else.

A buyer saving 100k by saving over a number of years is an extreme? or moving in from another state is an extreme too? maybe joe 6-pack decided to cash out a few stocks so he could buy a house?

According to the article, at least 1 person was in the market to buy in Berkeley 1999. It doesn't reference what price range he was, but I think it's reasonable to assume he probably had 20% down. If he had around 100k down, he probably could have bought one of these properties..

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Berkeley/593-The-Alameda-94707/home/1871605
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Berkeley/1370-Ada-St-94702/home/1609593

RentingForHalfTheCost says

There is a big difference! The 6% is on purchase price (no profit). The capital-gains tax is on profit (no purchase price)! Huge difference. Bigger than the 800 sqft million dollar homes in SF for crying out loud.

Plus you don't have to pay property taxes on gold. Or heat or cool it. You do need to "insure" it though, with a vault. Or by paying some guy to guard it.

zesta says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

zesta says

Furthermore, for all the moaning about the 6% commission a realtor takes (and I agree it's excessive) compare that to the capital-gains tax you'd pay on your gold. Now THAT's a lot of $$$.

There is a big difference! The 6% is on purchase price (no profit). The capital-gains tax is on profit (no purchase price)! Huge difference. Bigger than the 800 sqft million dollar homes in SF for crying out loud.

Well in this particular case...

1m * 6% = 60k

475k * 28% = 133k

Sure, but the 1m was my own. Someone took 60K of my hard earned money. The 475K was profit from my investment. I should pay taxes on it, just like any income. The 1m was already after tax money.

zesta says

A buyer saving 100k by saving over a number of years is an extreme? or moving in from another state is an extreme too? maybe joe 6-pack decided to cash out a few stocks so he could buy a house?

Zesta, no, this is not extreme. I and other people I know bought houses in the late 90s based on savings for the down payment.

For all of Mr. Wong's statements that buying a house anytime after 1995 is a bad idea, he still owns his house around here. Personally I think that's a fine decision, but I also don't predict prices dropping to 1995 levels. So either he doesn't really think that prices will revert to 1995 levels, or he likes his house so much that he's willing to take the multi-hundred-K loss when this happens. Sometimes people own houses even if it's not the cheapest possible way to get shelter.

Regarding the rules of thumb - in the early 90s I rented a place in SJ where the metrics said RENT. In hindsight, I would have been better off buying it for sure, but I wasn't in a position to buy then. Now, it's true that the same kind of appreciation that we saw in the last 20 years is unlikely to happen in the next 20 years, but the point is that metrics are not always right.

The metrics say that buying in Los Altos/Palo Alto/Los Gatos is not as good as buying in EPA/East SJ/Oakland/Stockton. But, those who can afford it may choose to buy in Los Gatos/etc even if the metrics say otherwise.

SiO2 says

For all of Mr. Wong's statements that buying a house anytime after 1995 is a bad idea, he still owns his house around here. Personally I think that's a fine decision, but I also don't predict prices dropping to 1995 levels. So either he doesn't really think that prices will revert to 1995 levels, or he likes his house so much that he's willing to take the multi-hundred-K loss when this happens. Sometimes people own houses even if it's not the cheapest possible way to get shelter

No I said after 1997, not 1995.

And yes, if prices from 1989 corrected down to 1980 plus inflation, whats there to prevent peak prices from correcting down to 1997 plus inflation. Robert Shiller has proven with data that over the long run even LA (glamor capitol of the world) can correct downwards, whats changed ? Oh where are you going to point to some data point or economic fact to as sustainable long term trend that supports prices
from NOT correcting further.

For me, and my home...Its all about what one values the most.. my house or my career? Our industries is what counts the most. The speculative prices, disconnected from fundamentals, which in the long run are not sustainable has never led to any positive outcome.

Wanna live in place like mine in Los Gatos... slap the fucking shit off the face of realtors and their lies.

Do your own research, read Robert Shillers book, research what prices were before the bubble, discount all the crap BS you hear, negotiate and take no prisoners. Fact is buyers have more ammo now than even back in early 90s. We even have the actual blow up of housing bubble as even greater justification to counter to all the BS we heard. Yep, buyers have a lot of ammo!

What can realtors say! No such thing as bubble.. the same jackasses who said a few years ago... no correction to 2004, 2002, and now 1997 prices.... Good Luck!

.

Of course he regrets it! However a very central tenet of his is never ever admitting he was wrong, so no surprise he did not answer.

Nope, no regrets. It was the right thing to do to rent at a good rate and put all my savings into the stock market.

Might buy soon though, just because I can easily do it now with no mortgage, lol.

The message always was and still is: every house has an appropriate price, and it's not whatever anyone would pay. It's how much a landlord would pay. It's the price that is equivalent to or less than to renting the same quality house in the same area for the same period of time.

Just use a good rent vs buy calculator to see if you should buy: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html

I regret that anyone that bought a shack paid more than 10% of listing price.
When they were ready to sell some damn fool would pay more then the new listing price.
Now that's clever flipping.

Patrick says

Just use a good rent vs buy calculator to see if you should buy: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html

Agreed--but someone who buys to occupy should always pay more than a landlord. The NYT calculator will show that though.

Patrick says

Might buy soon though, just because I can easily do it now with no mortgage, lol.

The message always was and still is: every house has an appropriate price, and it's not whatever anyone would pay. It's how much a landlord would pay. It's the price that is equivalent to or less than to renting the same quality house in the same area for the same period of time.

So since nowhere on the peninsula has rental parity, you are moving out and buying elsewhere? If not, seems like you would be contradicting your own message.

A flash from the past. We got lucky with the timing. Bought our first house in 1996 for $200k. It was a great stepping stone to get our future investments in the later years. It was appraised for $850k last year on a refinance. Funny we cluelessly bought our first rental in North San Jose in March 1999 for $330k. It's worth about $1M now. Prop 13 is nice I must say. Still own it and won't sell. Have to choke the supply side to get prices higher. ;)

And a couple of decades later, we have another tech boom. This one feels almost like the one last time except most of the current tech companies are actually making profits. I wouldn't be a buyer in the current environment. 2020-2022 might be a better time to buy IMHO.

I find this post to be extremely interesting.

I notice that we sometimes get misaligned in real estate debates because in order to compare whether or not a home purchase was the right thing to do, we have to look at two things: First, we have to identify a starting purchase point in time and an also an assessment point down the line where we assess the purchase. And second, we have to identify what the rent alternative was at the time the home was purchased AND what it is during our assessment point. As of today, I only see a brief window in time where I would argue that it was unquestionably a bad time to buy, which according to the Case-Shiller index was about mid-2005 through 2008. This was the height of the housing bubble, the height of the subprime lending crisis. I say this was a bad time because prices are just now recovering to where we were during that bubble years in California (generally speaking of course as there are some regions that have exceeded it).

I was one of those people that bought in summer of 2007 in the East Bay. I was a few years out of engineering school in my mid-20s, saved enough for a down-payment, and had to make a decision in whether to rent or to buy. At the time didn’t have much real estate education. My regret today is not so much buying at that time, but rather not being educated enough on the topic of real estate to see what was happening. At that time, buying pressure was coming from the media, my real estate agent, my parents, and my friends. House flipping get-rich-quick stories were running in every newspaper at the time. The following statement was being thrown around like candy, “buy now or be priced out forever”. The real estate education came the hard way, as it often does. That property I bought was worth less than I paid for it starting just a year later and stayed that way for a number of years. That was a difficult pill to swallow despite being able to comfortably afford the property and having a nice place to live for all those years. I watched several of my friends foreclose shortly after the bubble years. It wasn’t until this past year or so that prices rebounded enough to put me back in green. And after a decade of ownership, I was able to sell the property for more than I paid for it. I have a great deal of appreciation for what Patrick did with this site and with his book given that it was the ONLY detailed resource out there that I knew of that said, “hey, wait a minute! Let’s take a cold hard look at the less glamorous side of buying a house before we take the plunge”. Big thanks to you Patrick for that. I wish the book was available before I bought.

In regards to Patrick not buying and having regrets, there are several points that need to be considered. First, in affluent areas like the Peninsula, the rent:buy ratios are extremely low. Patrick covers this point well in his book. Next, it sounds like Patrick invested in the stock market and did well. Although it would have been great to buy in 1999 with prop13 in your back pocket, Patrick followed an alternative path. The story is not so tragic given that he isn’t one of those people that decided not to buy while neglecting to pursue any other investment options. And lastly, consider that competition in this area is fierce but it was also competitive back then too. One regret that may be present is that by not buying in 1999, prop13 cannot protect Patrick now from outrageous property taxes that would come with purchasing a home on the Peninsula today. Paying $12K, $15K, $20K in property tax, my gawd.

I moved to San Carlos in 2015. I watched an older lady, who had lived in the house across the street for 25yrs get evicted because the landlord wanted to jump on the rising rental wave. That really etched a point about the importance of home ownership in my mind. Although Patrick’s rent vs buy approach is valid, where it can break down is in the situation of insane YoY rental increases like we’ve seen between 2013-2017.

In terms of what’s to come… I honestly thought that 2017 was the year where things were going to cool off in the Bay Area (at least go flat). And so far I was dead wrong. 2017 was a strong year for real estate and according to Case-Shiller, SF increased 10-12 index points since January of this year. Although home prices and salaries can only diverge for so long, I have to keep reminding myself that here on the Peninsula, it's not just salaries that buy homes and create the frenzies but rather insane tech capital gains that are also at play that skew the normal rules in play at most regions of the country.

I wouldn’t dare get in today, but very interested to see where things go in the next 3-4yrs. Best of luck to everyone in your future real estate endeavors.

Regret not buying in 1849.

ThreeBays, the general rule of thumb is this:

With rent, it’s simple, no explanation needed.

With home ownership, you have to consider the following:
Mortgage principle + Mortgage interest + Homeowners Insurance + HOA (if applicable) + Property Tax

In general if your annual rent is less than annual (mortgage interest + homeowners insurance + HOA + property tax), then it’s better to rent. You don’t count mortgage principle since that remains with you as equity in the house. If really want to get technical, you could also consider the tax deduction from mortgage interest, HOA, and property tax, but I typically look past that to be more sure that the home purchase is the better option.

The problem is that there are two major unknowns: The first is how much you particular home price will change in time. The second is how rental prices in comparable homes in your area will change in time.

BayArea says

If really want to get technical, you could also consider the tax deduction from mortgage interest, HOA, and property tax, but I typically look past that to be more sure that the home purchase is the better option.

In a high COLA and high income you absolutely have to factor this in. Depending on your interest rate and income, it could be a massive savings that is hard to account for in renting. And I know there are calculators out there, but it would have to be pretty detailed rent vs. buy calculator to truly account for this.

For example, buy a $1M home with 80% LTV ($800k loan). In a calendar year you're paying $30-35k in interest depending on the rate (in the first year). Standard deduction is $12,700 for married filing jointly (2017). In this example you're now able to itemize above the standard deduction by $17,300 on the low end. Interest rates are low, so let's say you're annual income as a married couple is $200k. With no other debt, you could very likely afford an $800k mortgage (it would be tight, but trying to illustrate closer to a normal couple/family income). So with that income you're potentially saving 28% of that $17,300 you've itemized. So let's call it $4,800 saved or at least one month of rent saved, back in your pocket.

Now you've got taxes and insurance that can also be itemized. This is completely dependent on your state and property tax structure. Here in IL, property taxes on a $1M property are similar to the interest you'd be paying on the loan. So there's another $4,800 back in your pocket ($1M props in IL easily run property taxes from $20-$30k per year). So maybe call it $3,800 to $4,800. Either way, you're up close to $10k here in IL buying a property in the higher cost of living areas vs. renting. If you're income starts knocking you into the 33-39% tax bracket, the the game is even more in favor of the owner. At a minimum in this scenario, buying would likely knock off 2-4 months vs. the monthly rent in the early years.

Then factor in tax free gains on the appreciation up to $500k, and it's hard to see where renting makes sense. Mind you, my whole argument here is for the higher income earner and carrying a higher mortgage. For everyone not on the coasts and not making $200k plus, please use the rent vs. buy calculator of your choice. Federal and state taxes are a bitch and really do make a difference on the higher end of the spectrum though.

Also just noticed the HOA mention. If you can, avoid any and all HOA's at ALL cost. I don't give a shit what they do for me, that is one cost I don't want to have to itemize. I can mow my own lawn.

Good lord, it's Patrick.net. You can use PITI and everyone knows what it means. Save yourself typing all that out @bayarea

HOA is not tax deductible for owner-occupied properties

I actually made a new spreadsheet modelling the buy vs. rent question, I put in the $1M numbers:

https://imgur.com/a/1SKhH
It models the first 10 years because that's all I'm interested in.

"ACO" is PITI etc. minus the P

"TCO" is all net cash outgo

Monthly OER is how much (per month) living in the home has actually cost vs. the sales price (less 10% transaction costs) at the time.

The Alt Gross Savings section attempts to model putting TCO (less a nominal $12,000/yr in housing costs) in the market

So with a 5.8% average appreciation vs. a 5% opportunity cost, after 10 years someone who had bought the $1M house and sold it for $1.859M would have seen a $205,000 profit, the house paid the owner $1558/mo to live there.

The Alt section shows the renter at $1,000/mo would have just over $1M in cash. $26,000 less than the owner.

But if the renter can get 6% gains in the market then he'd be $50,000 ahead.

If the renter got 8% gains but paid $2500/mo rent, he'd be $90,000 behind after 10 years.

ThreeBays says

I find it hard to believe that buying a property in Menlo Park with a mortgage would not have greatly outperformed stock investment in the same period. Since both housing and the stock market have performed well, the best investment is to own both, the former with a low rate mortgage. The worst is to buy in cash.

Problem is a mortgage in MP takes all your disposable income . . .

I have a friend of a friend who bought in MP in 2000 for $700,000, I thought they bought at the top but I didn't understand "The Fortress" concept at all back then (of course, Google, Facebook, Apple appearing out of nowhere really boosted property values after the Great Recession).



("Fortress" neighborhoods are the green and blue properties, most everyone would like to live there if they could and nobody wants to leave)

So this person having bought in 2000, let's give them a 3.75% mortgage the whole time since then. Average appreciation has been 5.4% since 2000.

All expenses less principal has been ~$600,000, for an average of $2700/mo in expenses.

They have 80%+ equity and if they sold today they'd see a $400,000 gain, the house paid them $1600/mo to live there.

If they were market wizards and were paying $2000/mo rent and getting 9% returns in the market instead, they'd have $1.5M in the bank and be around $200,000 ahead.

8% returns would be a wash in the rent-vs-buy department.

Bellingham Bill says

The Alt section shows the renter at $1,000/mo would have just over $1M in cash. $26,000 less than the owner.

Might be misreading you. Is this a comparison to the $1M home buyer with a $1k/mo renter? Don't know the West coast, but I can't imagine on equal footing that a renter would pay $1k/mo for the same house that the $1M buyer would be getting. How would the numbers look with a renter paying $3k/mo which would be closer to what the $1M buyer would be paying monthly PITI?

All things equal, renter vs. PITI for the buyer, high income and high mortgage owners are far and away going to do better than renters. It's part of the separation of the rich and poor. The system is set up for those that make more to benefit the most. A $100-$200k mortgaged owner, in most cases, likely won't itemize and benefit from the tax benefits at all.

WookieMan says

How would the numbers look with a renter paying $3k/mo which would be closer to what the $1M buyer would be paying monthly PITI?

Giving the renter a $3000/mo rent (with a 2.5% increase every year) and ability to make 8% in the market, a housing market going up 5.4% a year . . .

In the first year (2018) the renter is $76,000 ahead, due to that 10% transaction cost selling the house.

2023, the owner is $40,000 ahead vs renting, he'd take a $13,000 loss on the house but through 2023 the renter has spent more in rent ($230,000) than his market gains ($176,000).

2028, the owner if he sells will see a $140,000 gain, or getting paid $1000/mo to live in the house.
The renter will have spent $450,000 on housing and gained $452,000 in the market.

Hey, I forgot to account for taxes on the investing side, so these aren't after-tax returns, LOL.

Anyhoo, the renter would have $140,000 less on hand in 2028 vs the guy who bought in 2018 and sold 10 years later.

After the loan is paid off in 2047, the owner will have total gain of $1.9M, for a monthly income from owning the house for 30 years of $5,200/mo.

The renter would have $5M in the market and be $600,000 ahead at that point, due to the magic of compounding interest @ 8% (and tax-free investments)

But if he wanted to buy that house, he'd have to pay $4.8M, along with its $50,000/yr property tax, while the owner is only paying $19,000/yr property tax, thanks to Prop 13.

Bellingham Bill says

Hey, I forgot to account for taxes on the investing side, so these aren't after-tax returns, LOL.

I appreciate the calculations. Are the $500k cap gains accounted for too in the tax savings for the home owner? I double checked the spreadsheet and don't believe I saw anything accounting for that though I could have missed it. You're looking at another $75k-100k saving depending on income at the year of gain.

I guess what I'm getting at is if you are going to live somewhere 5+ years, make over $200k W-2 income and have a large mortgage balance (large interest payment upfront/early years due to amortization) then owning in that scenario will almost certainly beat renting a similarly valued rental. If you can live in a $1k/mo rental then that obviously beats owning at this level, IF you religiously invest the difference. But that's not an apples to apples comparison.

It's easy to look back with hindsight and see what one should or should not have done. My personal metric was $/ft. I had been renting for years (and banking the difference) but was ready for more space,my own yard, etc. etc.

Anything much larger was either (1) more than my rent at the time and (2) due to a shortage of 2 bdrm rentals in my area the only other option was renting an entire house at an inflated price (presumably to cover someone's monthly mortgage).So it was sit in a cramped apartment or try and find something in our price range. It took two years before we found something that fit us. I saw a lot of crap in the meantime (and handy I'm not - although I've gotten better).

I'd like to think I was smart - but I flat out to got lucky. Rates were at what ended up begin close to an historic minimum, Rents jumped significantly after that, so staying wouldn't have been much of a bargain in hindsight. We have enough space for the next 30 years and don't plan on moving any time soon. If nothing else all of my research about my area let me recognize a legitimate deal when it presented itself.

Every markets different. Even locally from town to town or neighborhood to neighborhood.

If there are three things I've learned it's

1) stay within your means (not what the bank is willing to lend you)
2) ask the hard questions. If it's such a good deal why is it on the market to begin with? Scrutinize everything.
3) Be patient

Best of luck.

Here is an easy way to calculate these things:
Cap Rate + expected appreciation - mortgage rate/opportunity cost. You need nothing else.
e.g. for a typical Orange County home:
Cap rate = 4%
Expected appreciation = 6%
mortgage rate/opportunity cost = 5%
4+6-5=5. If the answer is greater than 0, you should buy. If the answer is less than 0, you should rent.