I found the following article interesting the other day. A retired couple with a four-bedroom home concerned that they couldn’t sell their home at 1.3 million, so they lowered it to 1.28 and were surprised it still didn’t sell. The owner then considers renting it out instead.

https://apnews.com/article/real-estate-housing-market-home-p...

▲

annodomini2019 a day ago | parent [-]

Out of curiosity I looked for the house that couple is selling. Believe it's this: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/30206-Telluride-Ln-Evergr... Notice the price history. 83k in '97, which is about 170k now. Being sold for a 10x profit. Sigh.

▲

fvrghl a day ago | parent | next [-]

If you had invested the 83k in the S&P500, you'd be slightly ahead I think if you include maintenance and property taxes.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/stocks/s-p-500/1997?amount=...

	▲	munksbeer 13 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What about if you had 8k as a deposit only, so you either invest in S&P500 and rent instead, or put the deposit on a house and repay the mortgage? That's the more equivalent scenario.
	▲	bobbiechen a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If you count the S&P 500, you should also count 20+ years of rent, right?
	▲	myvoiceismypass 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Most people are putting up 5-20% of the purchase price, so closer to ~16k -> ~225k after 28 years.
	▲	annodomini2019 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You don't get to live in the S&P500. Also don't really get the point of this response. Both just prove assets are wildly out of reach for young people now compared to then.

▲

kmeisthax a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]