vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I know of no generic formula for determining if an investment property is a good investment, besides the trivial formula. Make sure your income is greater than your expenses, and hope the value of the property doesn't drop. Some people will tell you to expect the monthly rent to be a fixed percentage of the purchase price, but that is a goal not a certainty. It is also impossible to estimate the difficulty renting the property, or how long the roof will last. Taxes can't be predicted, as the value of the house increase, so do the property taxes, but you might not be able to increase the rent.  You can't even predict the quality of the tenant. Will they damage the property? Or skip out early? You will need somebody who knows the local market to estimate the local conditions, and help you determine the estimated costs and income based on the actual property involved.
I'll compare it to a situation that is different, but will involve the same cash flow.  Imagine the buyer agrees that you buy only 70% of the house right now, and the remaining 30% in 7 years time.  It would be obviously fair to pay 70% of today's value today, pay 30% of a reasonable rent for 7 years (because 30% of the house isn't owned by you), then pay 30% of the value that the house has in 7 years time. 30% of the value in 7 years is the same as 30% of the value today, plus 30% of whatever the house gained in value.  Instead you pay 70% of today's value, you pay no rent for the 30% that you don't own, then in 7 years time you pay 30% of today's value, plus 50% of whatever the house gained in value. So you are basically exchanging 30% of seven years rent, plus interest, for 20% of the gain in value over 7 years. Which might be zero. Or might be very little. Or a lot, in which case you are still better off.   Obviously you need to set up a bullet proof contract. A lawyer will also tell you what to put into the contract in case the house burns down and can't be rebuilt, or you add an extension to the home which increases the value.  And keep in mind that this is a good deal if the house doesn't increase in value, but if the house increases in value a lot, you benefit anyway. A paradoxical situation, where the worse the deal turns out to be after 7 years, the better the result for you. In addition, the relative carries the risk of non-payment, which the bank obviously is not willing to do.
I think you are trying to figure out what will be a break-even rental rate for you, so that then you can decide whether renting at current market rates is worth it for you. This is tricky to determine because future valuations are uncertain. You can make rough estimates though. The most uncertain component is likely to be capital appreciation or depreciation (increase or decrease in the value of your property). This is usually a relatively large number (significant to the calculation). The value is uncertain because it depends on predictions of the housing market. Future interest rates or economic conditions will likely play a major role in dictating the future value of your home. Obviously there are numerous other costs to consider such as maintenance, tax and insurance some of which may be via escrow and included in your mortgage payment. Largest uncertainty in terms of income are the level of rent and occupancy rate. The former is reasonably predictable, the latter less so.  Would advise you make a spreadsheet and list them all out with margins of error to get some idea. The absolute amount you are paying on the mortgage is a red herring similar to when car dealers ask you what payment you can afford. That's not what's relevant. What's relevant is the Net Present Value of ALL the payments in relation to what you are getting in return. Note that one issue with assessing your cost of capital is, what's your opportunity cost. ie. if you didn't have the money tied up in real estate, what could you be earning with it elsewhere? This is not really part of the cost of capital, but it's something to consider. Also note that the total monthly payment for the mortgage is not useful to your calculations because a significant chunk of the payment will likely be to pay down principal and as such represents no real cost to you (its really just a transfer - reducing your bank balance but increasing your equity in the home). The interest portion is a real cost to you.
"For US punters, the Centre for Economic and Policy Research has a Housing Cost Calculator you can play with.  The BBC provides this one for the UK. For everyone else, there are a few rules of thumb (use with discretion and only as a ball-park guide): Your example of a Gross Rental Yield of 5% would have to be weighed up against local investment returns. Read Wikipedia's comprehensive ""Real-estate bubble"" article. Update: spotted that Fennec included this link at the NY Times which contains a Buy or Rent Calculator."
Of course, the fair-market rental value of the property is variable over time, so the overall fairness would need to understand rental values over time. I feel like this isn't actually a loan if I can never build more equity in the condo. Am I missing something? No, it isn't a loan. You and your parents are co-investing in real estate. Further, you are renting their portion of the investment from them. For comparison, with a loan you have 100% ownership in the property from the start, so you, the owner, would see all the upside/downside as the property valuation changes over time whether the loan is paid off or not. The borrower owes the loan balance (and interest) not some % of the property. A loan may be secured by the property (using a lien) but that is quite different from ownership. Typically, a loan has a payment schedule setup to reduce the loan balance (steadily) over time so that you eventually pay it off. With a loan you gain equity % — the amount you own outright, free & clear — in two ways, (1) by gradually paying off the loan over time so the unencumbered portion of the property grows, and (2) if the valuation of the property increases over time that gain in equity % is yours (not the lenders). However note that the legal ownership is all 100% yours from the start. Are my parents ripping me off with this deal that doesn't allow me to build my equity in my home? You can evaluate whether you are being ripped off by comparing the $1350/mo rate to the potential rental rate for the property over time (which will be a range or curve, and there are real estate websites (like zillow.com or redfin.com, others) to help estimate what fair-market rent might be). Are there similar deals like this...? A straight-forward loan would have the borrower with 100% legal ownership from the start, just that the property secures the loan. Whereas with co-investment there is a division of ownership % that is fixed from the start. It is unusual to have both investment and loan at the same time where they are setup for gradual change between them.
"BEFORE you invest in a house, make sure you account for all the returns, risks and costs, and compare them to returns, risks and costs of other investments. If you invest 20% of a house's value in another investment, you would also expect a return. You also probably will not have the cost interest for the balance (80% of ???). I have heard people say ""If I have a rental property, I'm just throwing away money - I'll have nothing at the end"" - if you get an interest-only loan, the same will apply, if you pay off your mortgage, you're paying a lot more - you could save/invest the extra, and then you WILL have something at the end (+interest). If you want to compare renting and owning, count the interest against the rental incoming against lost revenue (for however much actual money you've invested so far) + interest.  I've done the sums here (renting vs. owning, which IS slightly different - e.g. my house will never be empty, I pay extra if I want a different house/location). Not counting for the up-front costs (real estate, mortgage establishment etc), and not accounting for house price fluctuations, I get about the same ""return"" on buying as investing at the bank. Houses do, of course, fluctuate, both up and down (risk!), usually up in the long term. On the other hand, many people do lose out big time - some friends of mine invested when the market was high (everyone was investing in houses), they paid off as much as they could, then the price dropped, and they panicked and sold for even less than they bought for. The same applies if, in your example, house prices drop too much, so you owe more than the house is worth - the bank may force you to sell (or offer your own house as collateral). Don't forget about the hidden costs - lawn mowing and snow shoveling were mentioned, insurance, maintenance, etc - and risks like fluctuating rental prices, bad tenants, tenants moving on (loss of incoming, cleaning expenses, tidying up the place etc)...."
The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated.  This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting.  P.S. if anyone can find this article for me I'd greatly appreciate it, I've tried to use my google-fu with googling terms with site:fool.com but haven't found the article I remember.
"The value of getting into the landlord business -- or any other business -- depends on circumstances at the time. How much will it cost you to buy the property? How much can you reasonably expect to collect in rent? How easy or difficult is it to find a tenant? Etc. I owned a rental property for about ten years and I lost a bundle of money on it. Things people often don't consider when calculating likely rental income are: There will be times when you have no tenant. Someone moves out and you don't always find a new tenant right away. Maintenance. There's always something that the tenant expects you to fix. Tenants aren't likely to take as good a care of the property as someone who owned it would. And while a homeowner might fix little things himself, like a broken light switch or doorknob, the tenant expects the landlord to fix such things. If you live nearby and have the time and ability to do minor maintenance, this may be no big deal. If you have to call a professional, this can get very expensive very quickly. Like for example, I once had a tenant complain that the water heater wasn't working. I called a plumber. He found that the knob on the water heater was set to ""low"". So he turned it up. He charged me, I think it was $200. I can't really complain about the charge. He had to drive to the property, figure out that that was all the problem was, turn the knob, and then verify that that really solved the problem. Tenants don't always pay the rent on time, or at all. I had several tenants who apparently saw the rent as something optional, to be paid if they had money left over that they couldn't think of anything better to do with. You may get bad tenants who destroy the place. I had one tenant who did $10,000 worth of damage. That include six inches deep of trash all over the house that had to be cleared out, rotting food all over, excrement smeared on walls, holes in the walls, and many things broken.
"The trade-off seems to be quite simple: ""How much are you going to get if you sell it"" against ""How much are you going to get if you rent it out"". Several people already hinted that the rental revenue may be optimistic, I don't have anything to add to this, but keep in mind that if someone pays 45k for your apartment, the net gains for you will likely be lower as well. Another consideration would be that the value of your apartment can change, if you expect it to rise steadily you may want to think twice before selling. Now, assuming you have calculated your numbers properly, and a near 0% opportunity cost: 45,000 right now 3,200 per year The given numbers imply a return on investment of 14 years, or 7.1%. Personal conclusion: I would be surprised if you can actually get a 3.2k expected net profit for an apartment that rents out at 6k per year, but if you are confident the reward seems to be quite nice."
I live in suburban Washington DC.  The houses in my old neighborhood that  used to sell for $500K to $600K were renting for about $2,500 because that's all the market could bear.  My mortgage was about $3,100 but I could never have rented it out for that.  Owners were taking a loss every month just to keep the house.  Like I said earlier though, that same house is now only worth $328K.  They're still renting for the same $2,500 per month that they did before the value plummeted.   I did downsize a bit when I moved to my new house.  Went from 4 very large bedrooms to 4 moderate bedrooms (1 is kinda small) and went from 3 bathrooms to 2.  But the plot is much larger now than my previous house.  Before felt like a McMansion and now it feels like a cozy cottage but I'm sure a lot of that is my perception of the whole situation.
When you buy a property the house or the building goes down in value every year (it gets depreciated) similar to when you drive a new car out of the lot. However, it is the land that increases in value over time. As land becomes scarcer the value of land in that area will increase in value, as does land in sought after areas. If more people want to live in a particular suburb the land value will keep on increasing year after year. Sometimes established areas with houses built in the 1980s or even earlier can be worth much more than newly built areas. It comes down to the supply and demand of land and houses in a particular area. You might even get a situation where a run-down dilapidated house in a very sought after suburb sells for more than a brand new house in a less sought-after suburb nearby. Properties can be a very good investment and they can be a very poor investment. It can largely depend on the decisions you make in buying your investment property. The first thing you need to make a decision on is the location of the property. If you buy a property in a good area that is well sought after you can make good capital and rental returns over the long run. If you buy poorly in an area no one wants to live in then you might have problems renting it out or only be able to rent it out to bad tenants who cause damage, and you may not get any capital gains over many years. The second thing you need to decide on is when in the property cycle you buy the property. If you buy at the right time you can get higher rents and make some quick capital gains over a relatively short time. I can provide a personal example of this situation. I had bought a house (in Australia) in 2007 for $240,000 at a time when interests where at their highest (9%), no one was buying property and rents were on the increase (with low vacancy rates). Today, eight years after, we are getting $410 per week rent and the house next door (in worse condition than ours) has been put on the market asking for between $500,000 to $550,000 (most houses in the area had been selling during this year for over $500,000). So you can say that our house has more than doubled in 8 years.
As an investment, the trend doesn't really matter, what matters is the price which you buy the house, and the price at which you sell.  Say you buy a house for $250k today.  In general, it doesn't matter if the house is worth $200k or $300k tomorrow (neglecting things like refinancing and home equity loans).  What matters is the price when you sell.  The longer you plan to stay, the less the current market conditions mean. Of course there is a lot more that goes into the decision to buy a house, since you are going to live in it. You also need to take into account things like how long you plan on staying in the area, the stability of your job, and future family size.
There are at least three important aspectss missing from your equation. However they come with some uncertainty as one typically cannot tell the future performance. Appreciation of the rental units value. When comparing to the gain of any alternative investment an increasing value of the flat is a gain too. Increase of rent. Rents are typically adjusted either on a regular basis or at least when changing tennants. Calulation with a flat rent over 20 years is therefore way off. Tax deductions due to capital expenditures (i.e. mortgages), expenses for the upkeep and maintenance of the property, conserving and management, and so on. Obviously those are depending on your local legislation. There are multiple other issues to consider of course, e.g. inadvertant vacancy, which would not act in your favour.
To your secondary question: Appropriately consider all estimated numbers involved with keeping the house compared to your closest estimate of what the home could sell for. Weigh out the pros and cons yourself as a stranger will not be able to 100% appreciate what you value and dislike. Remember to include insurances, taxes, HOA(s), and the actual mortgage payment. Depending on how you also plan to rent out the property, include whichever utilities you intend to cover (if any). There will also be costs for property management and upkeep as things will break overtime and tenants will not hesitate to get you (or your management) to fix them, either way that means you are paying. I would also keep in mind while homes typically appreciate in value there is a higher risk with tenants for the value to depreciate to damages and poor upkeep. There are increased legal risks to renting, so be sure you have properly vetted whichever management you are going with. In extreme circumstances you also could be required to retain an attorney to defend yourself again litigation because whichever management team you hire will most likely defend themselves and not include you in that umbrella. My family lives in the LA area as well and a judge refused to throw out an obvious frivolous suit when my parents attempted to rent out a house. The possible renters after signing the main paperwork never showed to finish a second set of documents for renting. Parents immediately declined to rent to these people as they missed something so important without any explanation and they sued claiming racism, emotional damages, and some other really crazy things despite my parents never having met them (first meeting was between property management and renters only). Personally and professionally, I would only suggest renting our the place and not selling if you can turn a profit after all the above mentioned costs. If renters are only paying to keep the property in the black you have yourself a non-earning asset which WILL be damaged over time and require repairs which will come out of your pocket. Also, while the property is unoccupied you also must remember it is not earning at that time. Much of this may sound obvious, overcautious, etc... I simply wish to provide my family's experience to help you in making your decisions. Best of luck with your endeavor.
It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power.  In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item.  If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere.  It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay.  Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck.
Real estate. The value of the house where I live going up 15% per year! From 2004-2009. Sold for $92k in 1980 now valued at $524k. Twice the rate of inflation in that timeframe.   None of it makes sense nor is it sustainable = asset bubble. In my zip code the median income is $162k and median house value $808k (Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012). That averages out 5x annual income.   In LA and Las Vegas that ratio is even worse, where most of these HELs and HELOCs are going to blow up. This article is accurate. People use these loans to replace their stagnating or falling wages. And its a lot of people.
"I would not advise buying a home because you think you will make money. (1) Return on Investment If you have $290K, have you asked yourself how much your investment would grow if you invested it in other ways.  At 2% growth re-invested, your money would grow to $307K (or 17K) after 4 years.  $290,000 * 1.02 =   $295,800 * 1.02 =   $301,716 * 1.02 =   $307,750  (2) Homeowner Experience Without the experience of owning your own home, it's hard to know relate to complaints and expectations that your tenants might have.  It's hard to know to anticipate problems and repairs and costs due to home ownership.  Homeowners have many decisions to make regarding upkeep of a home.  The costs are difficult to predict if you have no experience to draw upon. (3) Managing Rental Property: It's a ""job"".  You either take on this responsibility, or you subcontract it to someone else who you pay to manage the property and contracts!  Is this something you are passionate about doing? If you need to travel back to the home, it's clear across country.  It's not close enough to visit."
Housing, eh? Housing costs are driven by salaries and land availability. Over in the Bay Area, $1500/mo for a nice 1-bedroom apartment is a good deal... but a decent software engineer with ~4 years' experience can get $120k, easily. The standard benchmark of affordability of housing is spending a third of your income on it a year: that guy can afford about $3,333/mo on housing. (If you don't fritter away the money and can keep your cost of living down and save money, you can really clean up, especially if you move elsewhere later.) So, to stop thinking about it in terms of dollar value, first try to think of it in terms of time: 33% of someone's salary or a third of their time at work going for housing is pretty nominal. Beyond that, think about it in terms of opportunity cost: If you saved that extra $20, what exactly would you use it for, and how much of that goal does it represent?
That's completely false.  If you buy a house and live in it for 30 years, it should rise about 2-3% with inflation (neglecting any bubbles), then when you sell it, it may be worth 75 to 100% more than you paid for it.  But if you sell it for 50-60% more, you didn't actually make any money (due to inflation), you lost money, but are still expected to pay capital gains on that.