Live data from Hacker News

The Rise of the Rich Renter

citylab.com

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't count on that appreciation going up forever, though. Once the number of buyers or wealth of buyers declines, home prices will too. I look at a lot of the houses here and see Detroit in 50 years. I moved here in 2009 and there was a big drop in house prices then, enough that everyone who bought in the boom years of 2004-2007 went underwater and many were foreclosed upon. Yes, I'm kicking myself for not buyin…

Unless all of your money was in Google stock options, in the example mentioned earlier, one could buy a house and have Google stock options, so...

And then you are doubly exposed to Google's fortunes as a company (or in my case, quadruply-exposed: my salary and most of my professional network at the time were dependent on Google). The price of Mountain View real estate is pretty heavily correlated with Google's stock price.

It's not irrational to want to have some diversification, particularly when things work out fairly well anyway.

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#52

This is dual to "the rise of wealthy foreign landlords that buy homes site-unseen as investment properties." My wife and I, despite being able to afford a home, have chosen not to buy one. Why? Because home prices in our area run at $2.7M for a 3BR [1], while we're paying $2600/month to rent a 2BR townhome. People we know who have bought are now paying $6-7K/month on housing, for something not much better than what w…

The difference is that with average appreciation rates in California, when they sell they get all of their money back (minus fees, of course). You? Well, you had a place to stay. As long as appreciation + inflation over the period you stay in a house you buy is greater than your interest rate, buying a house is effectively free (minus the downpayment). People bring up maintenance, however this is already taken into a…

The correct analysis should take into account that you now have a downpayment and extra money to invest every month if you rent compared to buy.

Buy scenario, free maintenance and no property taxes: Living in a $2.7M house means a downpayment of $540,000 plus $6.6k/month of mortgage (assuming 2% interest rate on ~$2.2M mortgage paid over 40 years). Your housing prices increase 6%/year on average (1985 - 2015 average, http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/california-housing-histor...). You sell 40 years later your house for $22,628,579.

Rent scenario: You put your $540,000 plus $4400 per month into your average stock market. 1985 to 2015 the performance was more than 10% per year (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm). Let's say you're conservative and you go for 6%/year in growth. In 40 years your net worth is $77,737,237.02.

Renting is definitely better than buying in the scenari outlined in grandparent's comment.

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#53
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that with average appreciation rates in California, when they sell they get all of their money back (minus fees, of course). You? Well, you had a place to stay. As long as appreciation + inflation over the period you stay in a house you buy is greater than your interest rate, buying a house is effectively free (minus the downpayment). People bring up maintenance, however this is already taken into a…

The correct analysis should take into account that you now have a downpayment and extra money to invest every month if you rent compared to buy. Buy scenario, free maintenance and no property taxes: Living in a $2.7M house means a downpayment of $540,000 plus $6.6k/month of mortgage (assuming 2% interest rate on ~$2.2M mortgage paid over 40 years). Your housing prices increase 6%/year on average (1985 - 2015 average,…

Yeah, that's the math that was running through my head. Again, this all hinges upon housing prices being so overinflated: usually, rent vs. buy is a wash when you do out the math, and you spend about as much on rent as you would on a typical mortgage payment. The Bay Area is just in a very weird place as far as housing prices go right now, because of foreign buyers, massively-appreciated stock options, development restrictions, and lack of land.

Also, I was considering a number of tail risks in our decision. For example, I'd bet that the house in the Bay Area will be worth roughly $0 in 40 years, because:

1.) Tech will have run its course, leading to a Detroit-like situation where everybody moves out and you can't sell what you've got.

2.) The housing stock here is objectively terrible by the standards of anywhere else in the country - many were cheaply built in the 1950s to 1970s, and they need major repairs and upgrades now, let alone in 40 years. Friend of mine was recently buying and was like "I offered $279K over asking on a house that needs at least $100K of repairs", and he didn't get it anyway.

3.) Termites are endemic here. Every house has termites and few of them have concrete basements. There's a good bet that the house you just spend $2.7M on doesn't actually have a foundation.

4.) Earthquakes and wildfires. The big tech companies assume that there is a 100% chance that the Bay Area will be hit by a major earthquake in the next 30 years; I don't see why I should assume any differently.

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#54
post #37
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take 10 houses for $200k in the Midwest over one $2m house in the Bay Area. Appreciation is lower, but rents (as a percentage of cost) are much, much better. The shortfall in appreciation can easily be made up for in better rent yield.

Less desirable areas always have higher cap rates. Most investors are NOT looking to make money on the cap rate though. If you're seriously investing in real estate you're looking into development projects, re-zoning, etc. You're buying because you know the local government has a 10 year plan to revitalize that part of the city or some other strategic bet.

True, but I think the context here is people buying one (or a very small number) of single family homes as an "investment."

My point is that to "invest" that way in a high cost area is not the smartest move. It's better to buy conservative dividend paying stocks. But if one must "invest" in property it's better to buy 10 for $200k than 1 for $1M. I also didn't mention risk mitigation: the risk of loss on the former is lower.

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not if you run it as a property company and not directly own them

Can you please explain?

You set up a company who owns the property's you can then claim expenses back against tax - you then pay your self a dividend.

As opposed to you owning the houses directly

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#56
post #4

Don’t kid, most people aren’t renting because they prefer it. We shouldn’t glorify unaffordability. My “rich” coworkers would largely love to own but they can’t afford the mammoth down payments, and the sky high rents plus sky high taxes make it difficult to save. “One of Aesop's best-known fables is “The Fox and the Grapes.” On its surface, or its literal level of meaning, the story tells of a fox who wants a bunch…

> Don’t kid, most people aren’t renting because they prefer it. I can't speak for the USA but in Germany - specifically where we live, home ownership is not/barely worth it financially speaking. The taxes alone for "owning property" i.e. renting it from the government until you die are extremely high. You pay 6.5% (varies by state) of the property value in "Grunderwerbsteuer" when you initially buy and then for a hom…

In New Hampshire, you can pay that much or more in taxes. Plucking a random house nearby:

https://www.redfin.com/NH/Amherst/47-Merrimack-Rd-03031/home...

For sale for: $284,900

Assessed at: $269,500

Taxes (2016) $6,764

(New Hampshire has no sales tax, and high property taxes, quite high in some towns...)

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#57

This is dual to "the rise of wealthy foreign landlords that buy homes site-unseen as investment properties." My wife and I, despite being able to afford a home, have chosen not to buy one. Why? Because home prices in our area run at $2.7M for a 3BR [1], while we're paying $2600/month to rent a 2BR townhome. People we know who have bought are now paying $6-7K/month on housing, for something not much better than what w…

Not sure I understand. Unless the property owner you are renting from is making a loss, renting should always be more expensive than owning. The landlord of your USD 2600 pcm rented property must be paying less than USD 2600 pcm in mortgage and taxes. Similarly, to rent an equivalent property to the one your friends are paying a USD 7K pcm mortgage on will cost more than USD 7K pcm. Of course, you need to have capital for a deposit, which may be what you cannot afford, but to suggest that "the math still doesn't work out" is wrong, unless you believe landlords are making a loss on rental income. And note that even if they have no mortgage, the tying up of capital in a house requires you to set rents to return more than the income achievable investing that capital, which would generally be greater than the mortgage since rates are low currently.

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

120% of the median income is not "rich" in this day and age

Hmm, it's above the median, it is well off. But yes, it isn't well off enough to be sheltered from the effects of the great recession, I agree.

well that's about 48k given the median salary in the US that's not relay well off puts you just about out of JAM (just about managing ) territory given health care costs

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#59
post #57

This is dual to "the rise of wealthy foreign landlords that buy homes site-unseen as investment properties." My wife and I, despite being able to afford a home, have chosen not to buy one. Why? Because home prices in our area run at $2.7M for a 3BR [1], while we're paying $2600/month to rent a 2BR townhome. People we know who have bought are now paying $6-7K/month on housing, for something not much better than what w…

Not sure I understand. Unless the property owner you are renting from is making a loss, renting should always be more expensive than owning. The landlord of your USD 2600 pcm rented property must be paying less than USD 2600 pcm in mortgage and taxes. Similarly, to rent an equivalent property to the one your friends are paying a USD 7K pcm mortgage on will cost more than USD 7K pcm. Of course, you need to have capita…

Two explanations, both of them centered around markets being made of different participants who all have different incentives, but the price being set on the margin of the market:

1.) Prices change over time. Someone who paid $2.4M for a 13-unit apartment block (as our landlord did) collects over $400K/year in rent at $2600/unit/month. That's a 17% return, well above interest, taxes, and property management. That same building might sell for $10M now, which would be a 4% return, barely enough to cover interest, let alone taxes and management. Indeed, new luxury apartment blocks are often renting for $7600/month+ (and they tend to get filled by Googlers on corporate business or new to the area - see point 2).

2.) Different people want different things, and so the pool of buyers and renters are often completely disjoint, with different means. I was shocked to discover that the whole 13-unit complex I'm in sold for just $2.4M (granted, 2012, when prices weren't as insane; see point #1). That's less than some of my friends are paying for single-family homes. And you're right, it's not exactly equivalent: it's multi-family, so there are neighbors, and no real yard (but it does have a common-space lawn). But would I pay triple the housing costs to not have neighbors? No - they don't annoy me that much.

The thing is, by being willing to live in multi-family housing, you change the population of people who are competing with you for housing. Most of the neighbors here are Mexican immigrants, blue-collar workers, or tech-workers who are doing the same thing we're doing (sacrificing some standard of living to save money). We aren't competing with other folks who have Google or Apple stock options, we're competing with folks who are making minimum wage and packing 3-4 families into a unit to make ends meet. In other words, you can save a lot of money by not caring about status and appearance.

(Actually, after Zillowing nearby prices, it makes me wonder if we should just buy a small duplex or multi-family apartment block, live in one unit, and rent out the other ones. Rent often nearly covers the full mortgage, and with a large down payment, it starts getting profitable quickly. There's still the issue of the housing stock in California being pretty terrible, though.)

Re: The Rise of the Rich Renter

#60
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7 years of saving I believe is the average for a down payment. It doesn’t sound like your story is too outside the range of normal.

Seems to make sense, buy a house 3x your annual income, with 20% down you could get that in 7 years if you save away 8.5% per year. And you have a house at 29

Lol, houses for 3x your income? I take it you don't live in the Bay Area ;-)
Post reply on HN