> A house is an inflation hedge.

So are Stocks ...

> I find it hard to believe that over time if you took the money you'd put into a house and subtracted out rent, you'd end up winning in the long term.

You are not alone. The thing is this is such a common argument that there are a zillion rent vs buy calculators [1].

That said, yeah sub 3% the math often does work out in terms of buy (assuming you don't sell before 7 years which the average person _does_ sell before). But sub3% and holding for 30 years is actually rare.

It basically comes down to that the down payment gives renters such a headstart in gains that the homeowner takes forever to overcome it. But keep in mind they're also comparing a similar rental house to the bought house. So If you'd rent a smaller 1 bedroom apartment but only going to buy a 4 bedroom house then you're really behind in the math.

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=rent+vs+buy+calculator

Exactly. After 8 years there is absolutely no way I could rent a comparable house in my area for what my mortgage costs.

That point is in the analysis after the bullet points (in phrases like "minus 400k you would have probably paid in rent" and "you need to consistently have rent-payment-level disposable income to make this work. Many working people don't.").

I considered putting it up in the bullet points. Apparently deciding against that lost my expressions of this point to some readers, including yourself.

But yes, this is why the analysis after the bullet point mentions the profile of people who don't have $2500 disposable income. The leverage matters more to people in this situation.

Having seen this conversation play out more than a few times and even turn a tad fighty, I think this is the fault line:

* people who do this kind of analysis frequently and generally have high disposable income often see that they can leverage compound interest rather than pay it, so the Pure Financial Investment plan seems like a slam dunk to them, and for their profile they're probably right.

* people who generally don't have high disposable income see that they can use leverage to make their rent payment do double duty, which seems like a huge win for them, and for their profile they're probably right.

What I did leave out is how a mortgage can bound your living costs. Another commenter correctly pointed out rents can expand dramatically. Where incomes track rents, I don't think this makes a dramatic difference, and that's why I didn't include it, but it's true this isn't guaranteed, and mortgage can function pretty well as a hedge.

They forgot to mention that they will move back to mom’s house.

Exactly lol

The leverage only matters in an appreciation market (which we’ve been spoiled with in the USA since boomertimes). If you distill the math on assumed zero appreciation (or zero “real” appreciation) it becomes not so terribly pretty.

It’s really a form of various hedges wrapped up with a bow, that for many people is desirable (and since we HAVE had appreciation it doesn’t “turn out bad” most of the time anyway).

Anyone who says “renting/buying” is the only way to go is missing something.

I understand it’s more complicated than this, but it seems really really confusing at a basic level.

In one situation you are paying someone else for a place to live, and when you stop doing that after 30 years, you’re out on the street.

In the other situation you are paying someone else for a place to live, and when you stop doing that after 30 years, you have a house.

> The house gives you a place to live

A careful re-reading of my comment will reveal that I did mention rent as a factor in at least two places: one as an opportunity cost to be reckoned with for people following the PFI plan (with which my example still comes out looking good), one as a cost of living substantial enough for many working people that they do not have significant disposable income, which makes leveraging their largest living cost appealing.

> Interest rates are closer to 6.7% which means your $2500/mo doesn't even cover your principal and interest of $2600 which is to say nothing of PMI (which will be required since you didn't put 20% down), homeowner's insurance, HOA fees, or property taxes.

Using a 5% interest rate was one of several simplifying assumptions that I chose to be generous to the Buy Housing on a Loan plan.

You are correct that interest rates are presently and historically higher than that, and that mortgage insurance, homeowners insurance, property taxes, and some maintenance costs that under the BHL plan can add up to significant housing costs that aren't going to equity and therefore aren't well-leveraged. In other words, the BHL plan actually comes off worse than I made it look.

(If there's a counter side of that, it's that landlords can and will pass on those costs so they're reflected in rents... but sticklers will notice that landlords who are done with amortized costs or who financed at lower rates can choose not to do that and may have incentives to depending on the market.)

That's in absolute terms. There's a relative point too: the higher the interest rates, the more the field tilts towards the PFI. It magnifies debt/leverage, making that path more expensive, and it magnifies return from invested income, making that path more rewarding if you can swing it.

> And don't forget that other than insurance and taxes, your mortgage payment is capped for 30 years.

I did leave out the bounding effect that a mortgage can have, and that's arguably an important missing point.

Wy would someone do that? My observation is that incomes also tend to grow in rough parity to rents in many markets -- in fact, local income growth is probably the primary variable local rents are dependent on (at least in a functioning market). This means during prime earning years decades from retirement, rent changes might be an acceptable simplification. But you're probably right that the closer you get to retirement, the more important bounding costs is. And there might even be other situations where the tradeoff starts to make sense even for earners with significant disposable incomes.

> but that requires you predicting your life 30 years in the future.

This is true, but the vast majority of people - especially in the US - don't move around the country or even state every few years. One of the biggest, perhaps the biggest, pro of renting is that you're not tied down to one place for very long.

It's pretty rare that someone buys a house then is suddenly forced to move hours away.

It's not true that paying off the mortgage makes it more advantageous to buy, home equity creates portfolio drag.