I think that is blaming the victim. As the article says, you have repair people describing the terms of the loan to people. If they don't understand what they're selling (and I'm sure they don't) then how can you expect the average person to? Not to mention the pressure selling that is probably being used on targeted groups (I'm looking at the elderly, minorities and groups that are generally less financially sophisticated).
Most people generally aren't in a position to "vote with their wallet". This is because most people are leveraged to their eyeballs with rents. This is a problem with Wall Street that trickles down, not a problem with the consumer that worked it's way up.
> many consumers took on home loans they had no intention of ever making good on
I disagree with this as well. People generally are not scam artist. On the contrary, most people like paying off their debts. Were people probably overly confident in their ability to repay, sure. Saying that people intended to default however, is not true.
Wall Street (and it's derivatives... I'm looking at you, ad funded Silicon Valley) is full of fraud. The fraud stems from the fact that the only people who can realistically perform checks and balances on this group(s) are the groups themselves. You may be able to blame the consumer when they have full and clear knowledge of how the system works, but that's not the case. Wall Street is full of so many obscurities and 40k ft descriptions that the average consumer really has no chance.
A good example of how the average person thinks financially... how many homeowners do you know that consider their home an "investment". Probably most, if not all.
Is the book in the US generally stacked towards originators? Certainly, as I argue, with financial literacy being so low, most home-owners wanting to do anything to avoid moving, and family/community ties dissolving. Hell, I went to business school and read 10Ks for a living, and can still barely manage to figure out all the terms and conditions on my credit cards.
I just want to point out that alternatives (usually uncomfortable, but often necessary) do exist to taking on opaque loans.
How does someone get into a situation where they are "leveraged to their eyeballs with rents"? Sometimes it's purely out of necessity (need to be close to sick family, within commuting distance of work, keeping a rent controlled unit) but otherwise most people in the US generally have a choice of where to live and how much to pay in rent. I could live in the city and pay 1.5x what I'm paying now to live in the suburbs in an unorthodox situation, but I don't because then my rent would be >30% of my annual income.
Maybe I'm wrong and I'm one of the lucky, shrinking few who still has this option, the option of mobility than once made the US great? Because I'm young and employable?
Also, if a homeowner considers their home an "investment" that means they should be willing to liquidate that investment at some point when it makes financial sense to do so. People get sentimentally attached to their homes, which is not true of most "good" (read: fungible/liquid) investments.
We're definitely both against fraud, but unfortunately these government programs that make life better for some by subsidizing mortgages, home renovations, tuitions, etc. can and will always be gamed by unscrupulous individuals. Question is - is the payoff to society (higher homeownership, literacy, energy efficiency) worth it?
I think we can amicably disagree. I'm not in the "fuck Wall St." camp. I understand what it is supposed to do and the value it is supposed to provide.
> Maybe I'm wrong and I'm one of the lucky, shrinking few who still has this option, the option of mobility than once made the US great? Because I'm young and employable?
Yes. You have the option of mobility because you're young and employable. Probably just because you're employable. The average person has horrible job prospects where they are. Moving into uncertainty of even worse job prospects probably isn't a realistic option. I think most people would try to make it work with the job they have (and get stuck with rents because of it), than leave their job and possibly not be able to find one where they move (and to have spent money moving).
> Also, if a homeowner considers their home an "investment" that means they should be willing to liquidate that investment at some point when it makes financial sense to do so. People get sentimentally attached to their homes, which is not true of most "good" (read: fungible/liquid) investments.
I'll go ahead and say this. Your home is NEVER an investment. A house that you own, maybe. But, I repeat, your home is never an investment.
> We're definitely both against fraud, but unfortunately these government programs that make life better for some by subsidizing mortgages, home renovations, tuitions, etc. can and will always be gamed by unscrupulous individuals. Question is - is the payoff to society (higher homeownership, literacy, energy efficiency) worth it?
I agree here, but I think the better question is, "When the unscrupulous individuals form a large, easily identifiable group, why sit idle and do nothing?"
Can you expand a bit more on this?
Usually it might not directly turn into an investment, but it does act as a 'savings vehicle' in many cases. For example when I moved to US a long time ago, the choice was between a 1200 rent and a 1600 mortgage (assuming I put a down of 25k or so). At that point it felt like a very reasonable investment and the market worked out afterwards where in it turned in a great ROI. If it wasn't for that move, I would've still been pissing off money in rent.
Also the actual investment options today are not as cut and dry as it seems either: There is no real 'assured' gain anywhere even though I do see the 3.5-6% returns number touted in the reddit personal finance circles. In the long term, I would ideally split money between these, not eschew home as an investment vehicle. With the right amount of thought and reasonable location choices, it can indeed turn out into a great investment. This is not to ignore the risks people take by overextending themselves / doing 'home flipping' but to each their own.
(Copied directly from my other post in this thread , though if you do a search I've said the same thing several times.)
There are many graphs that show aspects of this, here is one useful one I found: http://lesjones.com/2008/11/25/inflation-adjusted-us-house-p...
If I buy a house and live in it, how quickly can I reasonable divest myself from the house? For the average American, not quickly at all. Why is that? Because I need to a home to live in. If not this one, another. And generally the equity in my current home will be used to secure my future one.
A house that you buy and don't live in (or is easily divested) could be seen as an investment because you don't live in (consume) it. If you need to sell it, that money could easily go to other things. And you can sell in a timely manner.
Edit: I was trying to be layman about it, but chillingeffect did a good job on the technicals.
Yes, it's illiquid, absolutely. (Although not much more so than any other home one buys, say an apartment block; I can move on less notice than I can sell a property.) Yes, there are some concerns about the ROR, relative to inflation (although I note that world population, and population in most markets one cares about, is increasing, and they're not making more land, so one should expect real estate to appreciate somewhat, relative to inflation, although perhaps not enough to be interesting).
But why on earth would you say that it's "not an investment"? Why does illiquidity and poor RoR disqualify something from being an investment?
Do you also claim that buying negative-rate bonds is not an investment? What about buying gold against inflation (for those who see gold as an inflation hedge)?
What is the definition of "investment" that you're using? It must be a pretty compelling one, for you to use the phrase "not an investment" so confidently in so many comments. Me, I thought that the nature of investing was allocating capital, the opposite of divesting (selling).
In an economic sense, you don't consume an investment. In economics, an investment is the allocation of capital that will essentially be "put away" until some time in the future. You don't touch it.
In finance, an investment is purely about the possibility of appreciation/depreciation (or making money on the buy sell spread). If I buy a candy bar wit hope that it appreciates in value, it's an investment. If I short that candy bar, and the value of the bar depreciates, that's an investment.
I do understand that the two different usages of the term (combined with the fact that a house can be consumed and still be intact enough to sell). However, I stand by the statement that your home is not an investment. It's a bad financial one. It's not an economic one.
An an economic sense, an investment is an allocation of capital. Certainly consumer purchases of durable goods are not investments. The most common type of capital to invest is money, but other types might apply. By investing, one becomes the beneficiary of some of the means of production. Real estate is a perfect example. Real estate is always an economic investment, whether one then consumes the output or not. Also, by the way, many investments in this sense are consumable, usually with long rates of depreciation. That applies to a CNC machine, it applies to a fleet of productive vehicles, and it applies to buildings, including primary residences. If the fact that a house degrades with use makes it not-an-investment, you argue yourself into an obviously-silly corner.
Your line about "it's a bad financial one" is almost too foolish to touch. A bad financial investment is still an investment. Telling people that a bad investment is not an investment is not communicating, it's posturing. Financially, if you buy a candy bar, and its value drops, it was still an investment (a poor one).
If you want to make the claim that housing is a poorly-chosen investment, that's a different claim. Although, without knowing more about the life circumstances of the would-be investor, a fairly preposterous one, since it's clearly a good investment for many people, in practice.
> An an economic sense, an investment is an allocation of capital.
As I said.
> Certainly consumer purchases of durable goods are not investments.
I relate this to the consuming of your primary residence ("home").
> By investing, one becomes the beneficiary of some of the means of production. Real estate is a perfect example. Real estate is always an economic investment, whether one then consumes the output or not. Also, by the way, many investments in this sense are consumable, usually with long rates of depreciation. That applies to a CNC machine, it applies to a fleet of productive vehicles, and it applies to buildings, including primary residences. If the fact that a house degrades with use makes it not-an-investment, you argue yourself into an obviously-silly corner.
Your home is not a mechanism of production. Sure, if you buy your house, you may be able to sell it for a profit down the line. However, you home is a place a residence. A CNC machine, a fleet of vehicles, a building that you will then fill and rent out all are mechanisms of production. The idea of your home as a means of production is based upon the false idea (prevalent in the US, and apparently Canada) that home values will always increase. Non of those other "consumable" investments are based upon the value of the investment themselves... they produce value due to usage, not inflation.
> Your line about "it's a bad financial one" is almost too foolish to touch. A bad financial investment is still an investment. Telling people that a bad investment is not an investment is not communicating, it's posturing.=
I was probably being a little hyperbolic there, but my point was that you should not consider your home an investment.
> Financially, if you buy a candy bar, and its value drops, it was still an investment (a poor one).
Again, didn't I say that?
> If you want to make the claim that housing is a poorly-chosen investment, that's a different claim. Although, without knowing more about the life circumstances of the would-be investor, a fairly preposterous one, since it's clearly a good investment for many people, in practice.
In practice, for many people, it's not. See the 2008 housing crisis.
I agree with the "didn't I say that?"s, you just appeared to contradict it on later in the respective sentences.
Of course appreciation (assuming it happens) is not production. The good that a home produces is housing. That's why it's an allocation of capital to a means of production. That's why, economically, it's an investment. There's no way around that. The claim that something is economically an investment is completely disconnected from resale value; it's connected to productive capacity.
And you appear to have backed off on the claim that it's not a financial investment, you just think it's a poor one. I disagree, but I think your position on this is, while mistaken, not madness.
I think that, given demographic trends, both in terms of population growth, and in terms of ongoing trends in urbanization, we should expect that the long-term trend of real estate appreciating at 1-2% more than inflation should continue. That alone should defuse your claim that it's an obviously-bad investment (i.e. it's a good hedge against inflation, better than traditional anti-inflation hedges like gold). Whether it's a good investment depends on other factors, like how far you leverage, how easily you can weather things like 2008, how diversified you want your portfolio, how much tax advantage you get from owning your primary residence, how much it would cost in your market to rent an equivalent home, whether it's even possible to rent the home you want, etc etc etc. But it should be credibly on the table for every investor. And you cite 2008... but of the homeowners that I personally know, who were long real estate in 2008, with whom I've discussed the issue (perhaps a dozen), literally zero of them are sad that they were long in 2008 (except of course that if they'd had a crystal ball, some of them would have done differently, right after buying lottery tickets). So what is it you want me to see about the 2008 housing crisis?
I'll go ahead and say this. My home is certainly an investment. I allocated some capital to some real property, and this real property generates value for me every day, which I might have purchased otherwise (indeed, would have been nearly forced to). Because of the ability of my home to generate value in this manner, I expect that others might want to own it, and so it can probably be resold. I also am pretty optimistic about my ability to resell it for more than I bought it for, although perhaps not at such a price such that the purchase was as profitable as, say, buying an Vanguard ETF.
Maybe someone will come along later and pay you more than what you've spent on it. Maybe not. On average you're likely to get back what you paid plus inflation. It's a speculative investment at best.
Now, owning a home where someone else is paying you to live there? That's an investment.
Riverside County, Calif., has opened an investigation into marketing practices for PACE loans, and California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law in September new requirements establishing uniform disclosures for PACE loans, an effort to make lending terms closer to those for mortgages. Homeowners who get a PACE loan now have three days to back out.
The largest PACE lender, Renovate America Inc., is accused in three lawsuits filed in November by borrowers of double-charging interest and administrative fees and failing to immediately credit loan payments. The suits seek class-action status. The company denies the allegations and says it will “defend PACE, our company and the program vigorously.”
In November, the Energy Department urged administrators of the loan programs to clearly explain loan costs and other terms, allow borrowers to cancel their loan during a short period and deter kickbacks to contractors.
It would be nice to be able to trust financial institutions/loan originators, have them explain things to consumers in easy-to-understand and fair ways, and have some type of more personal relationship than we have now with those who provide us with places to save/borrow money.
Point that at the ~52k median US income, a long distance move + the inevitable missed weeks without a paycheck is not a trivial decision for a lot of people.
This is a point which is missed by so many people. Every empty-nester I know and consider well prepared for retirement has made downsizing a key component of their overall strategy.
I get sentimentality but there's as much sentimental value in retaining financial stability in one's later years. Sure, an empty nest, baby boomer household will usually be able to bear the financial burden well into their retirement. However, seniors find themselves facing large, unplanned healthcare expenses all too often. That's where the $XXX,XXX they gained by downsizing around the time of their retirement would prove invaluable. Not only would they avoid the large tax penalty that comes from withdrawing from a 401K, they'd reduce their fixed expenses while retaining an asset (the smaller home) that can be passed down to the next generation.
I've known far too many seniors who have been forced to sell the home they "plan to pass down to the children as a nest egg" just to cover medical bills and it's a sad sight to see.
Having a large static payment is making cost of living a much less important part of my cohorts finances
They're also happy to write documents that are incomprehensible to the buyer, providing terms in their favor, as they know they are not working with experts, 99 percent of the time.
When individuals are put in opposition to large institutions, the individuals are going to lose. No amount of financial education is going to change that.
Regulation and good governance are your best bets, though competition sometimes works as well; place another institution in the mix to take the burden off the individuals.
I've seen "fungible" used to indicate flexibility, and I've seen it used to indicate growth and decay. Are you using it to indicate either of these, or are you attempting to indicate a long-term steady state?
When trying to communicate an idea, you may wish to use a word that has a fixed meaning and a reasonable chance of being understood, because to be brutally honest, I haven't any idea what you're actually intending.
You've kind of hit on a huge part of the problem - there's WAY more than 2 sides. Thanks to swaps, derivatives, and bonds, the originator isn't on the hook if the borrower defaults. The originator isn't even holding the loan anymore. They've bundled it up and sold it off to a 3rd party who never bothers to check if the loans are any good, because THEY bundle it up and sell it off ASAP to a 4th party. Repeat ad nauseum.
End result is that nobody in the chain is ever incentivized to actually check if the borrower can afford the loan they've been given. On one side, you've got a giant billion-dollar industry who whose best interests are served by issuing as many loans issued as without concern for the long-term consequences. On the other, you have the borrower. As we learned from the 2008 crisis, putting all the pressure solely on the borrower to think of the long-term consequences is not only unfair, it's dangerous to everyone.
"You get a hot potato, you pass it on. I passed it on. Listen, there were a lot of people who are very happy to get things taken care of for me. Hey, you know? It was really funny seeing how far and how fast that particular potato got passed on. That told me a lot about who was bright and who was not."
The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul - Douglas Adams
I'm not sure if it's what roymurdock meant, but there's a nugget of truth to what he said. People did take on loans that they never planned to pay off personally. They saw the relentlessly upward trajectory of home prices and wanted to benefit. They took on loans with the intention of refinancing or selling the home a few years down the road. It wasn't an intention to defraud anyone, but it was definitely an attempt to get something for nothing. Just because they were trying to copy others who'd made large profits buying and then later selling their homes doesn't make it not greedy behavior.
That is, I find it misguided to fault people for defaulting on loan without faulting people for aggressively pushing people to refinance.
The cost of the system failure is being pushed to the people with the least control over it. I'm not looking for punishment. But responsible stewardship of the system controls would be nice.
Can't it be both? There's enough blame to go around. My only point was that the narrative of victimized homeowners preyed upon by evil lenders, put forth by a surprisingly large number of people, is misguided.
However, the blast radius is different. For every lender that was irresponsible, you hit many lendees. For each lendee, you likely did not increase the number of lenders touched.
That is, you fix one lender, and you likely fixed many more lendees.
Someone flipping, re-financing or selling the home is inherently going to be making good on their mortgage. He is claiming there were swathes of people who had "no intention of making good" on mortgages.
Moreover, why would they even want to understand? The loan disbursement will be going directly into to their pockets. The incentives are shockingly perverse all around.
If you're selling someone financing, it's your responsibility--more than the borrower's, in my opinion--to understand the product.
Disturbingly, PACE financing appears to have been structured as a tax assessment instead of a loan. That means it sidesteps the "disclosures about the financing costs that traditional lenders must provide" borrowers .
Homeowners are often legally required to sign a document agreeing that their home is not an investment.
It not being an investment is mostly the fault of your local government(and, I suppose, of the local homeowners themselves who don't make it an issue). If cities removed all the non-hazard-related zoning laws, property values would mostly be tied to the expected cap rate. And this would happen whether or not homeowners knew how to calculate a cap rate. And valuing something based on its profit potential seems close to the definition of an investment.
OTOH, this reduces the ratio of property owners to renters, who are less likely to care about property rights(I wonder if this is one reason the cities skew left?). So your city might end up like California if you did that, and something even worse than zoning might come along. Historically, only property owners could vote, which is one way to solve that problem; it's possible the modern approach is to segment a certain percentage of the population into SFHs. You could check that hypothesis by seeing how SFH-owners skew politically(I haven't done this).
I don't actually know anyone who owns an SFH, isn't an investor, and considers their SFH to be an investment. So I'm speculating on their motivations.
I've moved from Europe to Canada 20 years ago, and I'm still coming up against it all the time - I consider home/condo a utility, a bill paid for purpose; it can go up, but it can also go down.
EVERYbody around me thinks I'm crazy and that houses are #1 best investment ever.
They also tend to only look at raw numbers that look impressive unless you don't think about it too much rather than the whole picture. Grandma bought her house in 1970 for $10,000 and sold in 2005 for $100,000 (made up example). Looks impressive at a glance, however, What's the carrying cost of the house, transaction costs, inflation, and the performance of other investment vehicles during that time period?
This thinking is part of what drove the 2000s housing bubble. Its also part of what causes people to become "house poor," meaning a very large part of their income and assets go towards their primary residence leaving them unable to save any money and have no retirement fund.
>a recent Gallup poll shows that Americans now believe housing is the best long-term investment, beating out stocks, bonds, and gold.
The reality is house prices stay about lock step with inflation on average over the long haul. There's other reasons why I house is a bad investment even if they did outpace inflation. Not that they are a bad thing to buy or own, I am a homeowner myself, its just not a great financial investment.
The American government also subsidizes home ownership in various ways which can play into the fantasy.
>I consider home/condo a utility, a bill paid for purpose; it can go up, but it can also go down.
This is a great attitude. A home can be a fantastic thing to own. It is great at providing housing! It can provide a sense of pride. Its just not a great financial investment and every portfolio should be diversified even if it were.
Most Americans have no choice, because you can't buy 1/3rd of a house or a room in a house, or a basement. You have to buy the whole house and very rarely will a family be able to outright get themselves into 2 mortgages on houses in a desirable area. In other words, you're painting a picture of choice where there is none. Renting has the same underlying problem - you alleviate yourself of depreciation risk, but you take on the risk of being at the mercy of the landlord and area gentrification and being priced out of it eventually.
> The American government also subsidizes home ownership in various ways which can play into the fantasy.
Not in as many ways as you think. It's rather the higher density urban areas that subsidize the suburban low density single family houses (most of which are very shoddily constructed).
> Its just not a great financial investment and every portfolio should be diversified even if it were.
Like I said earlier, most Americans don't have a portfolio of investments of any sort. Housing is a relatively stable asset for the risk-averse, and incidentally also provides you with a place to live.
> The reality is house prices stay about lock step with inflation on average over the long haul.
The reality is that discussing real estate prices without discussing location and separating structure value from land value is a gross and useless oversimplification. Look at property values in desirable urban areas: they far outpaced inflation and have recovered after the housing crash in less than 5 years.
This applies to home ownership as well. Taxes can increase to where you can't afford to live there anymore.
> It's rather the higher density urban areas that subsidize the suburban low density single family houses (most of which are very shoddily constructed).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I am talking about, mostly, income tax deduction that applies to everyone. There's also the 30 year mortgage and VA loans and (I think) FHA loans.
> most Americans don't have a portfolio of investments of any sort.
Many times it because they put all their income into their house because they believe it is their house that it the key to building them wealth!! My only point was this is a common misconception. Housing is for living in, unless its an investment property that generates cash flow but that's not what we are talking about.
Buy a house, or rent, there's tradeoffs. There's pros and cons of both. Its different for everyone at different times in their lives. As I said, a house is a great place to live in! My only point is the American/Canadian mindset that buying a house is the ultimate way to build wealth is false. It might, if you are really lucky, but don't bet on it. Especially don't bet your future on it!
Yes, you have to buy housing, you need somewhere to live. A house is a good choice for many. A house may be cheaper than renting. It's just not a guaranteed generator of wealth like most people believe. You shouldn't disregard funding your retirement to buy a house. You shouldn't stop saving to buy a house. Diversify your assets.
That's a bit long winded, just don't want people automatically rule out home ownership since not only can it be a point of pride, it actually can be financially beneficial if you're willing to do the math for your own situation.
I don't think people are saying you'll never come out ahead (like one might say about someone who wants to take up daytrading). Most of the arguments I hear are, "houses are a terrible investment" or "don't think about it as an investment" and they're not trying to dissuade people from buying houses--just from buying them as an investment. Calling it an investment encourages people to buy when they should rent, or buy larger houses than they should. Houses being the largest purchase most people make and the one thing containing most of one's wealth (and the fact people only do it a few times in their life) should mean people need to be very careful about the decision. People also tend to undervalue the subjective attachment to the houses they live in, causing them to make poor financial decisions.
Like others have said, houses generally perform slightly less than inflation, there are additional costs like maintenance, taxes, and insurance people generally don't always consider. Houses are illiquid, you can move to a place with smaller rent, but you can't divest yourself of half your house (you could take a second mortgage, thought). It's also much easier to relocate when renting even if you're paying the same rent. When fixing up your house it's easy to not think about cost/benefit or blindly think your upgrades will pay for themselves.
Like I said, I am a homeowner. I love being a homeowner. But I just can't stand the myths around homeownership that people tell me. I didn't buy a house in order to get rich, I bought a house for consumption, to live in. I hope I come out ahead when I sell my home. I'll be happy as pie if I break even.
My dad asked me why I was buying a house if I thought it was a poor investment. "To live in." He was honestly confused as to why someone would buy their primary residence other than "because it's an investment."
Nobody believes a car is a good investment but we all still buy them, to use them.
>When fixing up your house it's easy to not think about cost/benefit or blindly think your upgrades will pay for themselves.
This is a great point that should not be overlooked. I think HGTV is terrible in this regards. One of my coworkers told me you should always get every single upgrade you want because you will always get that money back when you sell. This is just so untrue I find it difficult to believe that anyone would actually believe that.
Now, it hasn't (and hadn't) gone up as quickly as the stock exchange, but it typically is a safe place to park your equity and let it grow. And especially during the height of the bubble and currently, it's growing in value rather quickly, so people (perhaps influenced by HGTV) started viewing it as not only a safe investment but one that, with a little DIY work, could be a rather fast growing investment!
EDIT: added graph/article
* A house has a more important primary purpose
* A house can’t be an investment if you never plan to sell it
* Thinking of your house as an investment can lead to equity stripping
* The carrying costs of a house are too high for it to be an investment
* Your house won’t generate cash flow
* Price appreciation is the magic ingredient, but it’s not guaranteed
I'm not actually arguing against home ownership, I am a home owner myself. A primary home (for most people) should be thought of more as a commodity item.
Aren't houses purchased for the intent of renting them out investments? This would argue that they are not. Seems to be proving too much.
Despite the title, this section of the article is actually about how illiquid houses are. Which, again, proves too much - old bonds are also extremely illiquid, but no one says they aren't investments.
> A house can’t be an investment if you never plan to sell it
I buy plenty of VFINX that I don't intend to ever sell. I buy them for the dividends (incidentally, the same reason I would buy a house).
> Thinking of your house as an investment can lead to equity stripping
This says that thinking of your house as an investment leads to poor decisions, not that it is wrong. Sure, maybe it does, but that's a completely different argument.
> The carrying costs of a house are too high for it to be an investment
The carrying costs of a house are typically negative, unless you conveniently forget that a house covers a short position and is thus paying you back (in the form of covering your rent). Which the article does.
> Your house won’t generate cash flow
Again, it is covering a short position. It saves you from paying rent, which is mathematically identical to forcing you to continue paying rent but paying you the same amount.
> Price appreciation is the magic ingredient, but it’s not guaranteed
This is true of all investments.
Those are investment properties which is a different thing than we are talking about. We are talking about a primary residence bought to live in.
Yes, some investments are illiquid, I have some personally, but its stupid to have your entire portfolio in illiquid assets.
>I buy plenty of VFINX that I don't intend to ever sell. I buy them for the dividends (incidentally, the same reason I would buy a house).
A house doesn't provide dividends. Unless you are talking about investment properties, which, again, isn't what we are talking about here.
>The carrying costs of a house are typically negative
Doubtful. Very, very, few people are going to spend as much on rent as they would a house. Houses have a way of eating away at your money in a way renting does not. The carrying cost of my house is certainly not negative.
Of course, "you have to live somewhere" muddles the water a little bit. But its designed to get you to think about your house as more "somewhere to live" rather than "something to build wealth."
>This is true of all investments.
Which is why we diversify, to minimize risk. The American mindset is "buy a house because your house will make you rich." So people overspend on houses neglecting any other investments or savings in the process. That's the real problem.
A house pays you by saving you rent, which as I pointed out farther down is mathematically indistinguishable from renting it to someone else and continuing to pay rent (although this is muddied a bit by tax laws that care about whether the owner is also the tenant).
> Very, very, few people are going to spend as much on rent as they would a house.
This can only be true if you're not comparing similar housing - like, yeah, if I buy a house twice as big as the one I was renting I've lost money. But if you're comparing like for like, this assertion implies that investment properties are a net loss. It's a bit curious how those rental companies stay in business.
I agree with most of your responses, though. But they are all arguments that your house is a _bad_ investment, which is different from it not being an investment at all.
Oh, yes. "So before we reno'ed your house, it was worth $300K. We put $50K into renovations and it's now worth $400K!"
Just like ... "magic". Now I know this is simplistic, as the value of an actual improvement which has had the planning, effort and time in does have a premium over the pure investment. But some of this was farcical, and lead many to believe they could do the same.
Humans are not rational economic actors. Never have been. Never will be. This premise underlies the entire structure of consumerism. Watch "Century of the Self" if you don't believe me.