Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What I'm describing is a generalization since you asked about the differences in risk between renting and ownership.

It sounds like you have taken a series of (wise) steps to significantly limit your exposure to the risk involved with property ownership. This doesn't make the rule invalid though it makes you the exception to the rule.

> In really really the worst case, you move to that lower cost flat and have bank take away your flat (since you aint paying mortgage it is theirs).

In the event of the real estate market tanking, like it did in 2008, this is not what happens in a worst case scenario. You are still liable for the cost of the mortgage you owe, if the property loses more value on the open market than the amount left that you owe on the mortgage you can't just give back the property to cancel the mortgage. You might owe $300k left on the mortgage (because you originally bought the house for $500k for example) but now the property is only selling on the market for $250k. In this scenario you can't "give back" the property because even then you still owe the bank $50k. If you can't pay, you must declare bankruptcy in addition to losing the property. So now you have no home and also your credit is so destroyed that landlords refuse to rent to you. This is a very real scenario and happened to a LOT of people during the US real estate crisis.




You can in the US - most mortgages are written in a way that let's you walk away from them if they are underwater.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: