vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year.
As pointed out in a comment, it would be more natural to get a regular mortgage on the second house, which is essentially using the second house as collateral for its own loan.  If you are to use the first house, either mortgage it or get a home equity line of credit on it and use that money to buy the second house. The relative merits of the options may depend in part on where you live, whether or not you live in the homes, and the relative cost of the two properties.  For example, in the US, first and second homes get preferred tax treatment in addition to rates that are typically better than commercial loans (including mortgages for investment properties).  If you're going to get a better rate and pay less taxes on one option and not on the others, that's definitely something to weigh.
"Houses tend to appreciate more than condos. Houses are also more expensive. So it's a choice. You mention your girlfriend will be buying it with you. Take the time now to decide what will happen if you split up and put it in writing. Are you splitting the downpayment and mortgage 50/50? If not things can get complicated. Also consider home improvement costs, etc. If you think she is ""the one"" and you'll end up starting a family together, look at the location, nearby schools, etc. Sure, it may sound too early to be thinking about these things, but if you get a head start on finding a nice house you could save a lot of money and build a lot of equity with some smart decisions today."
I think we would be good with paying around $1200 monthly mortgage fees (with all other property fees included like tax etc.) You probably can't get a $250k house for $1,200 a month including taxes and insurance.  Even at a 4% rate and 20% down, your mortgage payment alone will be $954, and with taxes and insurance on top of that you're going to be over $1,200.  You might get a lower rate but even a drop to 3% only lowers the payment $90/month. Getting a cheaper house (which also reduces taxes and insurance) is the best option financially. What to do with the $15k that I have? If you didn't have a mortgage I'd say to keep 3-6 months of living expenses in an emergency fund, so I wouldn't deplete that just to get a mortgage. You're either going to be  Since 1) the mortgage payment would be tight and 2) you aren't able to save for a down payment, my recommendation is for you to rent until you can make a 20% down payment and have monthly payment that is 25% of your take-home pay or less.  Which means either your income goes up (which you indicate is a possibility) or you look for less house.  Ideally that would be on a 15-year note, since you build equity (and reduce interest) much more quickly than a 3-year note, but you can get the same effect by making extra principal payments. Also, very few people stay in their house for 30 years - 5 years is generally considered the cutoff point between renting and buying.  Since you're looking at a 10-year horizon it makes sense to buy a house once you can afford it.
"@Alex B already answered the first question. I want to respond to the second and third: I have heard the term ""The equity on your home is like a bank"". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? Yes, you can borrow against the equity in your home. What you should keep in mind is that you can only borrow against the amount that you've paid on your house. For example, if you've paid $100,000 against your house, you can then borrow $100,000 (assuming the value hasn't changed). The argument that this is a good deal misses the obvious alternative: If you didn't spend that $100,000 on a house, then you'd still have it and wouldn't need to take out a loan at all. Of course, equity still has value, and you should consider it when doing the cost/benefit analysis, but make sure to compare your equity to savings you could have from renting. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? Economically: As you'll notice from my parenthetical remarks, this is extremely situational. It might be good to come up with a spreadsheet for your situation, taking all of the costs into account, and see if you end up better or worse. Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a house for non-economic reasons if that's what you want. Just make sure you're aware of the real cost before you do it."
I would suggest a PEL. Created for this kind of scenario.  If you are sure to by a house, then it could be the support you need and without risk. Even it's 1%, it's better than 0,75% with Livret A, and it can have some other plus. But you will have your money for sure the moment you'll need it. (Source in French) But, carefull on some points :  If you don't want a house anymore, then, it's a waste of time. Same if you want to buy too fast (before 2/3 years). You have a child. It can be expensive. Be sure to have some cash to handle every situation. So you can avoid to withdraw and destroy PEL before buying just because you're low on cash.
If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term."
If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this.
Now for your other questions: If we rent to own are we building equity? Not usually. Like the other posters said, rent-to-own is whatever both parties agree on. But objectively, most rent-to-own agreements, whether for a TV or a house, are set up to screw the buyer. Sorry to be blunt, and I'm not saying your landlord would do that, this is just generally how it is with rent to own. You don't own it till you make the last payment, and if you miss a payment they repo the property. There is no recourse because, hey, it was a rental agreement! Of course the agreements vary, and people who offer rent to own aren't necessarily bad people, but it's like one of those payday loan places: They provide a valid service but no one with other options uses them. If we rent to own, can we escape if we have to (read: can't pay anymore). Usually, sure! Think about what you're saying: ""Here's the house back, and all that money I paid you? Keep it!"" It's a great deal if you're on the selling side. How does rent to own affect (or not) our credit? It all depends on how it's structured. But really, it comes down to are they going to do reporting to the credit bureaus? In a rent-to-own agreement between individuals, the answer is no. (individuals can't report to a credit bureau. it's kind of a big deal to be set up to be able to do that)"
Rent the property?? Is that a possible solution? Since selling the house is not an option and living in it isn't either, then perhaps renting it is the way to go? Since no explanation for the sister's motives is given, i'd speculate it is a mixture of emotional and financial concerns. Maybe mostly emotional. I imagine letting go of the one physical thing that has memories of you and your parents attached to it is very difficult. I don't think getting a lawyer or doing what's convenient for only your boyfriend is the way to go...But that's my own personal opinion. Clearly, he only has one close family member left alive. Creating permanent wounds in that relationship will cost more along the way. And quite frankly, if the house is owned 50-50, don't you need both owners to sign the deed to sell the house anyways? If renting is not an option, then maybe refinancing the mortgage to lower payments? Or Airbnb it only half the time? Or rent it out for events to help with payments? Or ask the sister for a little money...Not for half the mortgage, but at least a few hundred dollars to maintain the house and heat. If she is indeed concerned with the property, then maintaining it to prevent serious damagae is in her interests, no matter her income.
Real Estate is all local. In the United States, I can show you houses so high the rent on them is less than 1/3% of their value per month, eg. $1M House renting for less than $3500. I can also find 3 unit buildings (for say $200K) that rent for $3000/mo total rents. I might want to live in that house, but buy the triplex to rent out. You need to find what makes sense, and not buy out of impulse.  A house to live in and a house to invest have two different sets of criteria. They may overlap, but if the strict Price/Rent were universal, there would be no variation. If you clarify your goal, the answers will be far more valuable.
The below assessment is for primary residences as opposed to income properties. The truth is that with the exception of a housing bubble, the value of a house might outpace inflation by one or two percent.  According to the US Census, the price of a new home per square foot only went up 4.42% between 1963 and 2008, where as inflation was 4.4%.  Since home sizes increased, the price of a new home overall outpaced inflation by 1% at 5.4% (source).  According to Case-Shiller, inflation adjusted prices increased a measly .4% from 1890-2004 (see graph here). On the other hand your down payment money and the interest towards owning that home might be in a mutual fund earning you north of eight percent.  If you don't put down enough of a down payment to avoid PMI, you'll be literally throwing away money to get yourself in a home that could also be making money. Upgrades to your home that increase its value - unless you have crazy do-it-yourself skills and get good deals on the materials - usually don't return 100% on an investment.  The best tend to be around 80%. On top of the fact that your money is going towards an asset that isn't giving you much of a return, a house has costs that a rental simply doesn't have (or rather, it does have them, but they are wrapped into your rent) - closing costs as a buyer, realtor fees and closing costs as a seller, maintenance costs, and constantly escalating property taxes are examples of things that renters deal with only in an indirect sense. NYT columnist David Leonhart says all this more eloquently than I ever could in: There's an interactive calculator at the NYT that helps you apply Leonhart's criteria to your own area. None of this is to say that home ownership is a bad decision for all people at all times.  I'm looking to buy myself, but I'm not buying as an investment.  For example, I would never think that it was OK to stop funding my retirement because my house will eventually fund it for me.  Instead I'm buying because home ownership brings other values than money that a rental apartment would never give me and a rental home would cost more than the same home purchase (given 10 years).
The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.
"Bad areas are tough to value as a owner-occupied property, because the business model for being a slumlord is to rent apartments in absentia, usually to tenants receiving goverment subsidies such as Section 8 vouchers. The vouchers are based on a prevailing rent, which are often on par with nice suburban apartment complexes due to how that ""prevailing"" rate is calculated. So the value of the house is really an annuity calculation. You figure out the potential rental cash flow and apply whatever your local market premium is. The point is, doing an apples to apples comparison is going to be tough, and justifying the cost of repairs that aren't remediating health and safety issues probably won't be recoverable from a home valuation standpoint. A buyer would probably rip out your central air conditioner and sell it! If I were in your shoes, I'd look at the time horizon that you think you're going to be there and amortize the cost over that period. Assuming your mortgage is small and you're staying for about 5 years, spending $10k costs you about $170 a month. Your reward is a modern A/C and heating system. Compare that cost to the cost of moving and your desires and see if it's worth it to you."
The home owner will knock 20% off the price of the house. If the house is worth $297K, then 20% is just a discount your landlord is offering.  So your actual purchase price is $237K, and therefore a bank would have to lend you $237K. Since the house is worth more than the loan, you have equity.  20% to be more accurate.  Another way to say is, the bank only wants to loan you 80% of the value of the item securing the loan. If you default on day one, they can sell the house to somebody else for $296K and get a 20% return on their loan. So this 20% you are worried about isn't actually money that anybody gives anybody else, it is just a concept.
(400K)/(2800*12) = 11.90 (350K)/(2800*12) = 10.42 One can quite easily today buy a house for 180k-270k that would rent out for 1700-2100 / month. Lower Bound: (180K)/(1700*12) = 8.82 Upper Bound: (270K)/(2100*12) = 10.71 Even so, the rental returns here seem ""ridiculously high"" to me based on other markets I've noticed. Considering how the average price-to-rent ratio is 19.21, and your price-to-rent ratio ranges from 7.92 to 11.90, you are indeed correct. They are indeed ""ridiculously high"". Qualification: I was involved in real estate, and used the price-to-rent ratio to determine how long it would take to ""recover"" a person's investment in the property. Keep in mind that it's not the only thing I care about, and obviously the price-to-rent ratio tends to downplay expenses involved in actually owning properties and trying to deal with periods of vacancy. There's also the problem of taking into account demand as well. According to smartasset.com, Detroit, MI has the lowest price-to-rent ratio (with 6.27), which should suggest that people should buy properties immediately in this city. But that's probably more of a sign of people not wanting to move to Detroit and bid up the prices of properties. EDIT: I should also say that just because the properties are ""ridiculously expensive"" right now doesn't mean you should expect your rents to decrease. Rather, if rents keep staying at their current level, I'd predict that the property values will slowly increase in the future, thereby raising the price-to-rent ratio to 'non-ridiculous' mode."
"There are a number of reasons I'm in agreement with ""A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank.""  So, the update to the first comment should be ""A paid off house worth $300K, or a house with $150K equity and $275K in the retirement account.""  Edit - On reflection, an interesting question, but I wonder how many actually have this choice. When a family budgets for housing, and uses a 25% target, this number isn't much different for rent vs for the mortgage cost. So how, exactly do the numbers work out for a couple trying to save the next 80% of the home cost? A normal qualifying ration allows a house that costs about 3X one's income. A pay-in-full couple might agree to be conservative and drop to 2X. Are they on an austerity plan, saving 20% of their income in addition to paying the rent? Since the money must be invested conservatively, is it keeping up with house prices? After 10 years, inflation would be pushing the house cost up 30% or so, so is this a 12-15 year plan?  I'm happy to ignore the tax considerations. But I question the math of the whole process. It would seem there's a point where the mortgage (plus expenses) add up to less than the rent. And I'd suggest that's the point to buy the house."
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.  Additionally, Alex B helped me with two additional sources of information for this: Real Estate is local, all the articles here refer to the US housing market. Bankrate says purchase price / annual rate in the US has a long term average of 16.0. Fool says Purchase Price/Monthly Rent: 150 is good buy, 200 starts to get expensive This answer is copy pasted from a similar question (not the same so I did not vote to merge) linked here..
Some of the other answers mention this, but I want to highlight it with a personal anecdote. I have a property in a mid-sized college town in the US. Its current worth about what we paid for it 9 years ago. But I don't care at all because I will likely never sell it. That house is worth about $110,000 but rents for $1500 per month. It is a good investment. If you take rental income and the increase in equity from paying down the mortgage (subtracting maintenance) the return on the down payment is very good. I haven't mentioned the paper losses involved in depreciation as that's fairly US specific: the laws are different in other jurisdictions but for at least the first two years we showed losses while making money. So there are tax advantages as well (at least currently, those laws also change over time). There is a large difference between investing in a property for appreciation and investing for income. Even in those categories there are niches that can vary widely: commercial vs residential, trendy, vacation/tourist areas, etc. Each has their place, but ensure that you don't confuse a truism meant for one type of real estate investing as being applicable to real estate investing in general.