The benefit of owning a home is almost always psychological, not financial. If you take the money you'd use for a down payment and mortgage and invest it instead (after paying rent) you end up in about the same place.

But the psychological benefits can be huge. You have much greater control over the place you spend most of your time. You can change it to your liking. You don't have to worry about rent increases or owner move ins or any of that other stuff that renters deal with.

And if you have kids, they get a sense of home and place.

But don't do it for financial reasons.

There are plenty of psychological drawbacks as well. Consider for example that the fence between your house and your neighbor has become dilapidated. But your neighbor thinks it is fine and will not pay for a replacement. What do you do? Replace the fence without cost sharing? Argue with your neighbor on the condition of the fence? Or even after your neighbor has agreed, the act of selecting a mutually acceptable contractor to carry out the work? A lot of this feels like being a project manager, and if your day job is a project manager or even a senior engineer who sometimes wears the hat of a project manager, this could feel like a second part-time job.

> If you take the money you'd use for a down payment and mortgage and invest it instead (after paying rent) you end up in about the same place.

That is not the right way to see it.

If you have the cash to buy upfront, then yes, real estate is not that good an investment, unless you have a loaded portfolio already and want to diversify a bit, get some high inflation hedge, etc.

The real value of buying a home is leverage. That is, most people cannot go to a bank and borrow $500k. The bank will just not make a blank loan like that without any idea of what you're going to do with it.

Buying a home though is well understood and borrowing is made relatively easy.

For most people, buying a home is the only way they have to actually get significant leverage from borrowing.

The control benefit isn't just psychological; it can have real financial consequences. If you own your home, you can't be told by a landlord that their pet policy has changed and you will have to move out. You also can't have your landlord sell the place where you're living out from underneath you and inform you that the buyer doesn't want to rent the place out any more and you will have to move out. Both of those things have happened to me, and at pretty short notice (about a month to find a new place and move both times), and they were significant costs that I did not expect to have to pay.

Yep, it sucks to be at a landlord's mercy to determine how nice the place you live remains over time. Things will wear out. If you own the place, yes, it's expensive to fix that stuff up. But if you don't own the place, you may very well just be stuck with it.

From time to time I drive by the place I rented for quite a few years almost a decade ago now. All the visible stuff that needed maintenance when I lived there is still just as it was when I moved out. Maybe they've fixed up the (worse) interior issues, but probably not.

Yes, this is broadly correct. The free market will (roughly) arbitrage out any differences between owning and renting. The hidden factor is that whatever money you have in house equity represents opportunity cost that it isn't in investments. If you have 400k in a house and the stock market returns 6% over inflation, then the opportunity cost is 2k per month in interest, which is comparable to what you'd pay in rent.

There are tax advantages that favor owning (in the US), for a primary resident and not an arbitrageur - mortgage interest and capital gains when you sell are not taxed, while capital gains in a non-retirement account are.

You can gain by appreciation and leverage, of course - but you can just as easily not, you don't know if your city is going to be the next high-flying Austin or Boulder, or run-down Detroit. My own house has been flat in estimated value for four years in an area that I thought would continue to rise.

Neighbors of owned-properties:

  - care about the long-term effects of their actions
  - care about the plan of their surroundings
  - plan to stick around

Notably this is equally applicable to any occupant-owned property (e.g. condos > apartments).

This.

Our household income is 300k, and I took a big risk purchasing a home in Socal where mortgage is 50% of our take home income. In a space of 1 year or so, we went from saving two out of four paychecks each month, to sinking two into mortgage each month.

For me, we have one kid and we plan to stay put for at least 10 years. It's a good school district. The quality of life is excellent considering the weather, outdoors, cultural diversity, things to do, and proximity to international airport. We have friends and family here.

But to me what mattered most is that I am 40, our income is going to plateau. Renting is good advice, but in 5-10 years, we won't be able to afford rent here, let alone buy. On the other hand, I can refinance now and bring my mortgage down to what I was paying for rent previously, and in 10-15 years be mortgage free at a place with all the benefits I mentioned above.

One term for this is "price-to-rent ratio" which is as simple as it sounds.

The ratio has a wide range from city to city.

Full financial analysis gets complicated quickly because you have to consider mortgage rates, inflation, opportunity cost of the invested money, and how long you're keeping the house. It's possible to pick the more financially optimal decision using today's numbers and then have your perfect plan clobbered by a collapsing housing market, extreme swings in interest rates, or being forced to move early.

> You don't have to worry about rent increases

I'd also argue there are financial advantages (on top of the psychological ones) to the price stability as you don't have to hedge against your housing cost shooting up as much.

> But don't do it for financial reasons.

I think I disagree on this front, but that’s probably because I ended up buying a home due to a mix of FOMO, bad landlords and rent not being too far from mortgage.

Plus from a psychological perspective it’s hard to say don’t do it for financial reasons when anyone who bought a home in the last 10 years (forget 20+) has seen insane appreciation. I’m jealous of everyone who got practically free money (2-3% mortgages) on an asset that has increased at least 50%. Life probably doesn’t get better than that and makes me wish for such nice things.

At least my “rent” is “set” for the next 29 years (I just bought last year) so hopefully at some point my mortgage would be something to be envious of.

Totally agree with all of this. When I was younger I'd heard that owning a home was financially a no-brainer so many times I took it as fact. Boy was I in for a surprise when the reality of actually owning a home kicked in. It's not just the less obvious overall costs that add up, it's also the variance. At any point you can be hit with a sudden expenditure of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for a major repair.

Owning does give you a lot more control over your life in certain ways, which some will find a lot of value in. If you're someone who likes doing home improvements then buying a house makes a lot of sense.

Whether or not you plan to stay in the area for a while is probably the biggest factor. Buying a house makes it a lot harder to move in the future, but it also means you can't be forced to move. I had a horrible rental experience where I suddenly found out I had to move on short notice. It happened right after starting a stressful new job. Combining those two stressors made for some rough months.

I know a lot of other folks with similar stories of having to scramble out of a property on short notice. Maybe the rent gets jacked up to an unaffordable level, or maybe the landlord who said they were renewing the lease suddenly changes their mind.

This isn't really true in many HCOL areas, a mortgage payment + amortization can be cheaper than renting an equivalent property. On top of that the amortization of your loan doesn't incur capital gains tax.

Even if your property doesn't appreciate more than inflation you can still profit massively from owning just through the loan amortization. Only being forced to sell during a market crash could realistically cause a big downside, but the upside is substantial compared to the risk.

It is also the safest leverage investment most people can do and the cheapest way to diversify away from stock market.

In fact paying off your mortgage is usually better risk/profit calculation than buying bonds as mortgage interest is usually higher than bond interests[1]. If you hold any significant amount on bonds you are better off using that money for a downpayment.

Everyone here is doing the cold hard math on 100% stocks when every financial advisor says you should diversify to reduce risks. Of course if you go 100% stocks and assume average returns will keep going forever (and not, you know, go full 90s Japan) the math will say stocks. But if you add any sort of risk lowering diversification a mortgage is usually the best one you can get.

[1]: I live in Sweden where almost everyone has floating interest rates for mortgages, I know US people can lock in their interest at low or high rates for decades which can skew the calculations

I don't think that's good advice. I, and most people I know who have invested in home ownership over the past 30-40 years, have done way better than we could ever have in the stock market or 401k. It's way more tangible for people than trusting some index fund with their savings, especially if they can maintain the home, improve it, and do repairs mostly themselves. And bonus... when you sell, you don't have to wait until you're 60 years old to spend it!

This!

As someone who moved 6 times in 8 years (admittedly, some of those were for work), and every time, I relied on moving things myself/with friends, I was just tired any more!

For the last move, I hired movers since I was already married by then and our stuff tripled (yes, mine was a very small portion).

The fact that I don't have to move for a while now gives me a lot of peace!

most of these articles neglect to mention families. so I downvote for simple lack of completeness.

Yeah this. But some additional flavor to emphasize the 'don't do it for financial reasons' aspect.

In the late 90's I, like a number of my married friends, 'owned' a house in the Bay Area. Dot coms were going crazy, the economy was insane, and people who got big equity payouts were buying places with their stock. At the height of all that, my Sun stock holdings were enough to pay off the remainder of my mortgage but I got the "opportunity cost" talk from my financial advisor about how tech stocks were returning 15 to 20% and more, so what I should really do, is refinance, and put my equity into tech stock! I didn't do that but at least two people I knew did. And when the crash came, the friends that had refinanced ended up selling their houses an moving out of the area, and I was left with the dread associated of being an "older" engineer when tech jobs were on the way out. But I still had a mortgage and kids to support. Had I paid the house off I would be in a position to take a job with much lower pay than my last job and still stay in my house (with just the tax,insurance,utilities and maintenance costs). The psychological cost of 'uncertainty' is especially burdensome on me (which, I suppose, is why I make a good operations person).

I told my wife that if I ever had a chance to pay off the mortgage again (prior to paying it off the old fashioned way of making payments for 30 years :-)) I would. In California, you are required by law to be able to make a payment larger than you requested payment and any excess goes toward the principal. So we started making bigger payments, and between that and some bonuses and stock recovery we managed to pay it off. I still got complaints from my financial advisor that she could get us a better return than that, but I didn't care. I wanted more certainty than that.

Now that story works because I knew that I wanted to stay in the Bay Area, there were jobs that I would be interested in (even if they didn't pay what I would prefer) and that was important to me. A relative who was more management in retail (started at Sears) found owning was a problem because it made relocation harder. As a result, even though they owned now and then, they lost money during the mortgage crisis (needed to move with their house underwater) and didn't get the advantage of just staying in one place.

My wife's parents simply rented out their place and moved to a new place and bought a new house there. They ended up collecting a few properties which were their retirement plan, being sold off over time to pay for expenses when they could no longer work. That was more 'investment like' in my mind. But it was also a lot of accounting work with property managers etc.

Buying a home works really well if you are married and you both have salaries (and initially no kids). The US tax system is set up to 'reward' that behavior with a better rate for married filing jointly and a mortgage deduction for owning a house. It cuts out a lot of uncertainty. But it also means moving is a bigger deal. In today's market, if you bought a house with an < 6% mortgage and are looking at buying with on >9% then they feel a bit locked in.

> If you take the money you'd use for a down payment and mortgage and invest it instead (after paying rent) you end up in about the same place.

You'd actually end up in a much better place historically, homes were never a particularly good investment in the US, but there are very few people who can pull it off and actually invest the difference and not just spend it.

Yeah, no. Fuck renting. It may be ok for 5 maybe 10 years, while you're figuring yourself out, but after that it's just wasted money.

If you buy property it will be yours, forever. You will pass it down, you will be forever part of the community, and your children, and so on.

Both my parents come from big farmer families, and lots of poverty. When my grandparents managed to end serfdom in the late 50's and their rented farm became their it was a huge deal: that became the family home. Like our own castle of sorts.

But i guess it's a different culture, my country has the higher percentage of home owners in europe for a reason, whereas most of northern europe housing marked is dominated by speculation and renting agencies, among the worst sort of leeches that have ever lived.

Well, not historically because for a lot of the last few decades, house prices have gone up dramatically more than average investments. But it does seem like that is coming to and end and of course you can't make decisions based on the future.

Even so, there's still a benefit to owning which is that you aren't paying the agency fees, elevated maintenance fees, and landlord profit, which are all non-zero.

Yes the benefit is psychological but I think there's more to it as well.

Firstly within investing, I am assuming that a person has safety net amount of money before properly investing. This is something that I have heard some people don't exactly do.

As such, what happens is that, they might lose a job and have to pay rent and might have to sell the stocks or any index fund/investments that they had within the market (which depends on if the market is doing good or bad too) and overall snatches opportunity for money to actually grow for years.

I recommend having a safety net but I must admit that there is still some psychological stress overall due to multitude of factors, as such, if possible, buying a house feels like it might be overall decent choice and the differences might not be so much.

that being said, I do think that it depends upon the land prices and many other things overall too.

Also, this is tangential but I used to be a boglehead, still am but with recent cases of Nasdaq[0] & I think S&P bending towards SpaceX and AI IPO's by literally bending rules, it does feel like the investment markets might be more shaky given other factors

(Not a financial advice at all) but I recommend looking towards dimensional index funds which do just a very bit more than index funds if the addition of floaty investments like SpaceX and other IPO's make you fear similar to me.

But the thing is that the downstream effects of it will still be visible, for example, just imagining if SpaceX gets added to IPO and then quickly added to Nasdaq/S&P and then it falls substantially for any reason. The thing is that the market itself would be spooked and other funds would be impacted too.

I have belied in the market efficiency hypothesis but a lot of it feels like private equity trying to raise evaluations to then push it to index funds (by in this case, asking nasdaq to bend the rules to force passive investors to buy and hold the bags basically impacting retirement accounts too and perhaps even govt bailouts but basically it becomes privatization of gains and socialization of losses and becoming too big to fail.

I must say that it feels a bit of blatant corruption in some instances like the one for SpaceX and this removes my confidence within markets.

I do recommend overall diversification for world stocks and also housing if affordable.

I wish to still invest in markets but with a bit more caution rather than blind optimism. Also no, active investing doesn't quite work either reading john bogle books and other resources and passive investing is still superior to active investing overall but just with more caution. That's all.

[0]: https://www.thestreet.com/latest-news/new-nasdaq-rules-open-...