vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends.   It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent.  Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in.  If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between.  As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term.  To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time.  Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view.
There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again). My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the ""usual"" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life. Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss). Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan)."
&gt;means less demand for absurdly priced homes which means prices will drop to affordable levels.  Rent and home prices are obviously variable but in my area home prices are pretty aligned with rents.  Assuming both home prices and rent goes up with inflation and accounting for insurance, taxes, tax advantages, maintenance and a list of other issues the prices are comparable.  If you have the capital for a down payment and plan to stay in one house (or aparment) for 5 years you are probably better off buying.  To say home prices are absurd you need to be comparing it to what you consider it's true worth but how are you determining that?  Edit: Perhaps both rent and home prices will go down as more people live with their parents and room mates but I haven't seen that trend start yet and vacancy rates aren't that high (as far as I know) so I don't see it starting soon.  If that trend did start I imagine new construction would be the first ones to go but housing developments are going strong around me.
"Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become ""house- rich but cash-poor"". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire."
"IF the price of the property (1) increases A LOT, you will just break even, on the huge expenses of home owning. IF the price of the property (2) increases A HUGE AMOUNT, you will make lots of money, due to the leverage. IF the price of the property (3) stays even, you will LOSE a tremendous amount of money. It's much like owning a car - constant expenses. That's all there is to it. It's well worth bearing in mind that property prices for your area / your property need to be constantly increasing for you to merely break even. Note that over long periods of time prices tend to go up (most anywhere - but not everywhere). Many people basically base their thinking on that. It will be OK ""in the long run"". Which is fair enough. I believe one huge factor is that it is enforced saving. That is the number one advantage for most. Note too that in most/all jurisdictions, there are tremendous tax advantages, even if it turns out to be situation (1) (i.e. a waste of time, you only break-even). Note finally that there are, indeed, tremendous social/financial advantages to having the equity: it gets incredibly easy to get other loans (for business or the like) once you own a house; this is undeniably an advantage (perhaps press your husband on that one)."
According to Dave Ramsey you should pay off the house. What I've found is that I'm willing to work a lot harder at saving money to put toward the house when I have that specific goal in mind.  If I were to put the money in the market instead then I would be less likely to make as many sacrifices and would inevitability end up putting less money away.
"Another factor is, how far is your prospective rental property from where you live? vs. how comprehensive is your property management service?  If you need to visit much or would simply like to keep an eye on it, a couple of hours drive could be a deal breaker. One more thought; would you be able to upgrade the property at a profit when it comes time to sell?  If you have a realtor you trust he or she should be able to tell you if, say a $20k kitchen reno would reliably return more than $20k. It has a lot to do with the property's relative price position in the neighborhood.  A cheaper home has more ""upsell"" room."
Yes, it is safe, we have been doing it for years. We prefer our tenants to make their rent payments in this manner. In fact, we prefer that they set up an automatic payment for the rent, either through their online banking or through their bank directly. Apart from getting your rent on time, this method also has the added benefit of both parties having their own records of rent payments through their bank statements, in case there is a dispute about the rent sometime down the track. Having a separate bank account just for the rent does make sense as well, it makes it easier for you to check if rent has come in, it makes it easier if you need to compare your statement without having to highlight all the rent payments amongst all other payments (you might not want to show your other incomes and spending habits to others), and you can withdraw the rents to your other account (which might offer higher interest) after it has come in, leaving a small balance most of the time in your rent account.
Your reasoning is backwards. As others have pointed out, you cannot just decide how much you charge irrespective of the market. Let me paraphrase a little economics 101 to underline why you also should not think like this: You can see a rental property like your house (the same reasoning is usually explained with the example of hotel rooms) as a series of perishable goods. Your house represents the potential sale of the January rent (which perishes once January is over), plus the February rent etc. Your approach was to compute the total costs (all fixed and variable costs of owning that house as well as costs associated to renting specifically) and average them over the time period so that you know how much to ask at least. Assuming that you are only looking to rent it out, not sell it or let a family member live there, you can't think like this. Most of those costs that you averaged are what economists call sunk costs. You have already incurred the mortgage costs and they are not affected by your decision to rent or not to rent. These costs are irrelevant to your decision making process. You only need to think about marginal costs: those additional costs that you have when you rent but not when you don't. Look at the market prices for renting similar properties in that region and compare them with your marginal costs. As long as they are higher than your marginal costs, rent it out. This does not mean that you are sure to make profits, but it means that you are sure to make less losses than in your only alternative of not renting.
In our case, we bought a house about 12 years ago, before rental parity was being discussed in the blogsphere. Looking back, we supposedly bought at the wrong time, according to that agent's rating system, but it turned out fine for us. Our house has appreciated, whereas the S&P 500 is basically where it was 12 years ago. Had we been thinking in terms of rental parity, we might not have bought at that time. Of course, your mileage may vary, and hindsight is always 20/20. I think the most helpful advice I can offer was something I got from a real estate agent around the time we were looking. He told me ""when you're looking at houses, be sure you like the floor plan and the location, because those two things are not easily changed."" That advice really helped us to see things more clearly."
I'd talk to a solicitor and see if you can structure the purchase in a way that breaks the property into three pieces. One would be the freehold of the whole building, one would be a long lease on the downstairs part (on which you would get a residential mortgage) and one would be a long lease on the upstairs flat (on which you would get a buy-to-let mortgage). Since there's essentially no price premium for freehold as opposed to long lease, you should be able to raise enough money from the two mortgages to fund the purchase.
Honestly I would look for a house you can afford and one that is below the maximum amount of what they are willing to lend you.  The reason is owning a house is not a quick loan that you can pay off in a year or two (unless you're rich then I would question why are you even bothering with a loan). This is a long term commitment; can you honestly say your job will provide the money for the mortgage, the upkeep and remodeling of the house (even if it's the perfect house you will want to change something, make the bathroom bigger, put in a pool table etc.. etc..), living expenses and any hiccups life throws at you? Like most of us, that answer will be no. Always have money and supplies for that rainy day, for those lean days. For that mortgage payment. And if nothing happens you can always use the money to pay the mortgage off faster or take a vacation.
Now if you were to rent the house, a lot of those costs could ""go away"" by becoming the tenants' responsibility. Your cost of the house sitting full would be $1,240. Let's pad that with 10% for repairs and go with $1,364. Now let's assume you can rent for $1,000 a month. Keep in mind all these rates are about right for my area but will change based on size and amenities. Your choices are let the house sit empty for $1,435 a month or fill it and only ""lose"" $240 a month. Keep in mind that in both cases you will be gaining equity. So what a lot of people do around here is rent out their houses and pay the $240 as an investment. For every $240 they pay, they get $1,000 in equity (well, interest and fees aside, but you get the point). It's not a money maker for them right now, but as they get older two things happen. That $240 a month ""payment"" pays off their mortgage, so they end up owning the house outright. Then that $240 a month payment turns to extra income. And at some point, their rental can be sold for (let's guess) $400,000. SO they paid $86,400 and got back $400,000. All the while they are building equity in their rental and in the home they are living in. The important take away from this, is that it's not a source of income for the landlord as much as it is an investment. You will likely not be able to rent a house for more then a mortgage + costs + taxes, but it does make a good investment vehicle."
Buy a rental property instead. You get tax benefits as well as passive income. And it pays for itself
"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the ""normal"" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years?  Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less?   If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property.  The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses.   Another way to think about it:  If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?"
As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.
I think  the cleanest way to do this is to rent the house from your father for 2 years, possibly adding an option to buy at a set price to the lease agreement.  That takes care of any gift issues, and avoids complications like you living in a house that you couldn't afford to own otherwise.  If/when you are able to afford a mortgage, get a mortgage on the house and buy it from your father.   Will a bank be willing to take out a mortgage on a house that I technically own for the full amount? I would not take out a mortgage for anything more than 80% of the house's market value.  Anything more than that, and you need to pay mortgage insurance, which will increase your monthly payment for no benefit to you.   My biggest concern is that you won't be able to afford an 80% mortgage after 2 years.  If your father really wants to keep the house in the family then he should either keep the house and rent it to you, or give you the down payment as a gift (keeping under the maximum gift to avoid taxes). If neither you or your father cannot afford the house you may have no choice but to sell it.  I would not advise you make a bad financial decision purely for sentimental reasons.
You would have to find someone in the other state who wanted to swap. This is conceivable but difficult if you want the houses to be the same value. How do you find the one person who lives in the right place now and wants to move to the right area? The normal way this situation is handled is to simply put your house on the market. At the same time, you find a new house in the new location. You arrange for a new mortgage for the new house and make purchase contingent on selling the old house. Your buyer pays off your mortgage and gives you a bit left over that you use as a downpayment on the new house. Note that you take a loss on closing costs when you do this. This is why if you are in the position where you move frequently, you may be better off renting. Sometimes an employer will help with this, paying for a long term hotel or short term rental. This can give you more room to sell and buy the houses. If you have to move right now, immediately, not in a few months when your housing situation is fixed, consider double renting. You rent out your mortgaged house to someone and pay rent on a new place. You may put some of your stuff in storage until you get into your permanent place. The downside is that it can be harder to sell a house with a tenant until you are close to the end of the lease. And of course, you are probably not in the best position to get or pay good rent. Your situation restricts your options. You might get stuck in this situation for a year so as to get the time that you need to line up a buyer. Of course, you may get lucky and find someone who wants your old house as an investment property. Such a person won't be bothered by a tenant. But they usually want a good price. After all, they want to make money off it. There are those operations that advertise that they buy ugly houses. They want a good deal. You'll probably take a bath. But they can buy quickly, so you can move on quickly. No waiting until they find a buyer.
The rule of thumb I have always heard and what we rent our rental house at is 1% per month at the minimum (in the US). The rent has to cover the mortgage, the property taxes, the homeowners insurance, your income taxes (on the rent), the maintenance of the property and the times when the property is vacant. Even at 1% per month that doesn't leave a whole lot of profit compared to what you put in.  I have no idea why anybody would buy a rental property in Australia if all they could get is 5% per year before expenses. They couldn't possibly be making money in that investment, not to mention the aggravations of getting late night phone calls because something broke in the rental house. No way I would make that investment.
The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)"
Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately. Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible. You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business.