vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level ""paying rent"" should be avoided. I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it. A quote from the article - annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a ""4.16"" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a ""20"", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision. Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years).
"You can make a contingent offer: ""I will buy this house if I sell my own.""  In a highly competitive environment, contingent offers tend to be ignored. (Another commentator described such a contingency clause as synonymous with ""Please Reject Me"".) You can get a bridge loan: you borrow money for a short term, at punishingly high interest.  If your house doesn't sell, you're fscked. You pay for two mortgages (or even buy the other house for cash).  If you can afford this, congratulations on, you know, being super-rich. Or you can do what I am doing: selling one house and then living at my mom's until I buy another one.  (You will have to stay at your own mom's house; my mom's house will be full, of course.) Edit: A commentator with the disturbingly Kafkaesque name of ""R."" made the not-unreasonable suggestion that you buy both and rent out one or the other.  Consider this possibility, but remember: On the other hand, if the stars align, you might not want to extricate yourself.  If the tenant is paying the mortgage and a little more, you have an appreciating asset, and one you can borrow against.  With a little work and a little judicious use of leverage, doing this over and over, you can accumulate a string of income-producing rental properties."
Your question has an interesting mix of issues. ASAP and 3-4 years doesn't feel like the same thing. ASAP results in bad decisions made in haste. Four years of living very frugally can create a nice down payment on a house.      A car is only an investment for Uber drivers and those who are directly financially benefitting from a car's use. For everyone else, it's a necessary expense.  What I'd focus on is the decision of buying a plot of land. Unless this is a very common way to do it in your country, I don't recommend that order. Having land and then trying to finance the building of a house has far more complexity than most people need in their lives. In my opinion, the better way is to save the 20% down, and buy a new or existing home you can afford.  In the end, spending is a matter of priority. If you truly want to get out in the least time, I'd save every dime I can and start looking for a house that your income can support.
"For most people ""home ownership"" is a long term lifestyle strategy (i.e. the intention is to own a home for several decades, regardless of how many times one particular house might be ""swapped"" for a different one.  In an economic environment with steady monetary inflation, taking out a long-term loan backed by a tangible non-depreciating ""permanent"" asset (e.g. real estate) is in practice a form of investing not borrowing, because over time the monetary value of the asset will increase in line with inflation, but the size of the loan remains constant in money terms.  That strategy was always at risk in the short term because of temporary falls in house prices, but long-term inflation running at say 5% per year would cancel out even a 20% fall in house prices in 4 years. Downturns in the economy were often correlated with rises in the inflation rate, which fixed the short-term problem even faster. Car and student loans are an essentially different financial proposition, because you know from the start that the asset will not retain its value (unless you are ""investing in a vintage car"" rather than ""buying a means of personal transportation"", a new car will lose most of its monetary value within say 5 years) or there is no tangible asset at all (e.g. taking out a student loan, paying for a vacation trip by credit card, etc).  The ""scariness"" over home loans was the widespread realization that the rules of the game had been changed permanently, by the combination of an economic downturn plus national (or even international) financial policies designed to enforce low inflation rates - with the consequence that ""being underwater"" had been changed from a short term problem to a long-term one."
So you will be saving $450 + price of commuting gas - cost of transportation + cost of commuting maintenance - the cost of recreational car rentals if decide to go without a car.  For some people that cost is not enough to forego the convenience of owning a car. One factor you have not alluded too is your current financial goals.  Are you attempting to live a spartan lifestyle in order to dramatically change your net worth?  Give up the car.   There really is more then the math you are presenting so the decision is very much based upon your behavior and your goals in life.  It is very likely that owning the car will be more expensive, but it will also be less convenient.  Is that cost great enough to forego the convenience?  Only you can decide.
If you think that your parents' home is in danger, you might want to check what it would take to make sure their house is safe, and what the financial situation actually is. You are paying rent, there are brothers who may or may not be paying rent. We don't have the information, you have. Saving that house might be a worthwhile investment.  I assume that if you moved out, either rented or by buying a house, they wouldn't get any rent from you anymore and whatever the situation is, it would be much worse.
The price of the loan may be justified if you're considered a high-risk applicant for some reason (e.g. you're putting very little money in initial payment), and if it includes all the associated expenses. What is more relevant to your situation is that you're probably better off renting. Think about it: your $300'000 house will require some repairs in those 30 years (let's estimate those at $100'000). That means in 30 years you'll build $200'000 of equity spending $720'000 on it. Of course this assumes that the value of the house will remain constant. You're effectively be throwing away $520'000, or more than $1'400 a month. If you can rent a place for $1'400 a month or less, you'll build more equity by renting that place for 30 years and saving the excess money in a bank account. If you consider the interest that money in your bank account will earn you (e.g. 3% annually), you'll build more than $200'000 equity in 30 years even if you spend as much as $1'650 on your rent and save only $350 a month.
Why is a home loan (mortgage) cheaper than gold loan? It has to do with risk. Lending money secured by gold is inherently riskier than a loan secure by your home. Increased risk means the lender must charge more. That's why home loans are cheap compared to loans for other purposes. Home loans are secured by the house. Houses are assets that hold and usually retain some value. Houses are easy to track down (they can't be hidden or moved) in the event that you don't repay your loan. Houses are reasonably liquid, they can be resold to pay off a defaulted loan.
Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend.
Consider contracting with a property management company to lease and maintain the house until it can be sold. Rent on the property should cover the mortgage, property taxes, etc. The property management company can handle maintenance and the tenant would be responsible for utilities.
"I think there are two questions here: (a) Is it better to continue living with your parents while you save up for a bigger down payment on a house, or to move out as soon as possible? (b) Is it better to pay off a student loan and make a smaller down payment on the house, or to keep paying on the student loan and use the cash for a larger down payment on the house? Regarding (a), this is mostly a personal priorities question. You don't say if you're paying your parents anything, but even if you are, it's likely a lot less than the cost of your buying your own home. It is almost certainly ECONOMICALLY better to stay with your parents. But do you like living with your parents, and do they like having you around? Or are they pushing you to move out? Are you fighting with them regularly? Do you just like the idea of being more independent? If you'd prefer to have your own place, how important is it to you? Is it worth the additional cost? These are questions only you can answer. Regarding (b), you need to compare the cost of the student loan and the mortgage loan. Start with the interest rates of each. For the mortgage loan, if your down payment is below a certain threshold -- 20% last time I bought a house -- you have to pay for the lender's mortgage insurance, so add that in if applicable. If you are paying ""points"" to get a reduced interest rate, factor that in too. Then whichever is more expensive, that's the one that you want to make smaller. If one or both are variable rate loans (well, you say the student loan is fixed), than you have to guess what the rates might be in the future."
House as investment is not a good idea. Besides the obvious calculations don't forget the property tax, home maintenance costs and time, insurance costs, etc. There are a lot of hidden drains on the investment value of the house; most especially the time that you have to invest in maintaining it. On the other hand, if you plan on staying in the area, having children, pets or like do home improvements, landscaping, gardening, auto repair, wood/metal shopping then a house might be useful to you. Also consider the housing market where you are. This gets a bit more difficult to calculate but if you have a high-demand rental market then the house might make sense as an investment if you can rent it out for more than your monthly cost (including all of those factors above). But being a landlord is not for everyone. Again more of your time invested into the house, you have to be prepared to go months without renting it, you may have to deal with crazy people that will totally trash your house and threaten you if you complain, and you may need to part with some of the rent to a management company if you need their skills or time. It sounds like you are just not that interested right now. That's fine. Don't rush. Invest your money some other way (i.e.: the stock market). More than likely when you are ready for a house, or to bail your family out of trouble (if that's what you choose to do), you'll have even more assets to do either with.
An important factor you failed to mention is the costs associated with owning a home.  For example, every 10 / 15 years, you have to replace your AC unit ($5k) and what about replacing a roof (depends on size, but could be $10k)?  Not to mention, paying a couple thousand annually for property taxes.  When renting, you never have to worry about any of these three.....
In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it.  One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation.  I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property.   Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently.  You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time)
"The basic answer is that you are comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand, you are considering a case where someone buys a single already-built house. On the other hand, you are considering a case where someone buys a large piece of land, builds 10 houses, and (presumably) sells or rents the 9 they're not living in. Those are two totally different endeavors. It might be reasonable to compare the cost of a plot of land sized for a single house to the cost of a similar plot with a house already on it. But you can't directly compare the cost of buying 10 houses worth of land to the cost of one house. As other answers have mentioned, building 10 houses involves a massive amount of work: an architect has to design a house, somebody has to get permits to build it, someone may have to get water/power/sewage hookups, somebody has to physically build it -- then multiply all that by 10 for 10 houses. Once you're done, you still haven't recouped your investment. You just have 10 houses. Now you have to sell them, which is a whole other job in itself. Because the things you're comparing are so different, the potential buyers for the two cases are also completely different. This explains the ""inconsistency"" between the asking price and your perception of its value. The two kinds of properties are in two different markets. The people looking to buy a single home are just regular people looking for a place to live (or maybe trying to get a rental property). The people looking to buy a 10-house plot are real estate developers with a whole different set of concerns. There could be many reasons why the land hasn't been purchased yet, but you can't compare it to the cost of comparable houses, because almost no one who is looking for a house is going to consider buying 2 acres of land instead. It's like asking why filling up your car with gas is so much more expensive per gallon than buying a gas station and giving yourself free gas. They're just not the same thing. But given the size of the land, I can join forces with other people which are also in the market and totally bring down the land price per piece to say 100k?
Hey, to be a bit more personal, I'm in a similar situation (albeit houses near me are all like $300k for a shack).   Don't rush into a house that will make you miserable, either because it's crap, or because it'll cost you an arm and a leg and your firstborn.   It's perfectly fine to rent another year or two and build up your downpayment, credit history, and credit score.
Explain the situation to a landlord and offer to prepay a few months of rent in advance as a guarantee.  This may or may not work, but being honest and committed may just be the answer.
"Real Estate has historically been the most sound investment of all times. Not only does property consistant increase in value (which is what you want every investment to do), it does so at the highest rate with the lowest risk. Most return on investment (like a stock in the market) the potential rate of gain is proportionat to the potential loss. The more secure an investment, the lower the potential gain. But, with Real Estate, property typically doubles in value every 10 years. Our overall R.E. economy is on an upward turn, recovering from a time  where values tanked. to jump in now, is probably better than waiting for any amount of time, be it 1 month, or 1 year. You concern about being ""tied in"" to this investment is a valid concern, however, since the market is in an upward turn, you should be more and more able to turn around and sell it later on. The best thing that you could potentially do would be to invest in a rental property where your cost of investment (your mortgage note) is paid by the renters. However, being a landlord is always a risky business (hence, the higher rate of return, which considering your investment is ultimately zero, the return rate is huge :-)   The trick would be to take the reters payments to you and keep it in an account that you use to pay for any repairs, upgrades, or marketing in between when the unit is vacant. But, with your parents losing their house, this may not be possible - unless you take their home and then keep the living arrangments the same as they are now. One possibility to help you get your foot in the door of being a property owner (not necessarily ""investor"") and help your parents keep their house (if that is what they would like to do) is re-finance with them... if you can't afford the entire mortgage, but they are capable of filling the gap between what you can afford and what their property costs, then you become partnered with them, and when/if their circumstances change, they can always buy you out."
dunno) Also you could just buy one (or the other, or both) of your mortgages as a 20% down conventional ""non owner occupied"" mortgage and generate leeway there (ex: buy the home as non owner occupied, and rent it out until your year is up, though non owner occupied mortgage have worse interest rates so that's not as appealing). Or buy one as a ""secondary residency"" mortgage? Consult your loan officer there, they like to see like ""geographic distance"" between primary and secondary residences I've heard. If it's HUD (FHA) mortgage, the owner occupancy agreement you will sign is that you ""will continue to occupy the property as my primary residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless extenuating circumstances arise which are beyond my control"" (ref), i.e. you plan on living in it for a year, so you're kind of stuck in your case. Maybe you'd want to occupy it as quickly as possible initially to make the year up more quickly :) Apparently you can also request the lender to agree to arbitrarily rescind the owner occupancy aspect of the mortgage, half way through, though I'd imagine you need some sort of excuse to convince them. Might not hurt to ask."
This is of course a perfectly normal thing to happen. People trade up to a bigger house every day. When you've found a bigger house you want to move to and a buyer for your existing one, you arrange 'closing dates' for both i.e. the date on which the sale actually happens. Usually you make them very close, either on the same day or with an overlap of a few weeks. You use the equity (i.e. the difference between the house value and the mortgage) in the old house as the down payment on the new house. You can't of course use the part of the old house that is mortgaged. If the day you buy the new and sell the old is the same, your banks and lawyers do everything for you on that day. If there is an overlap then you need something called 'bridge financing' to cover the period when you own two houses. Banks are used to doing this, and it's not really that expensive when you take into account all the other costs of moving house. Talk to them for details. As a side note, it is generally reckoned not to be worth buying a house if you only intended to live there one or two years. The costs involved in the process of buying, selling and moving usually outweigh any gains in house value. You may find yourself with a higher down payment if you rent for a year or two and save up a down payment for your 'bigger' house instead.
First, who is saying that it is a better option? In general it is best to pay cash for things when you can. I think the reality is that for most people owning a house would be very difficult without some sort of financing. That said, one argument for financing a house these days even if you could afford to pay cash is that the interest rates are very low. For a 30-year fixed loan you can borrow money under 4.5% APR with decent credit. If you are willing to accept even a little risk you could almost certainly invest that same money and get a return higher than 4.5%. With the US mortgage interest tax deduction the numbers are even more favorable for financing.  Those rates look even more attractive when you consider you are paying for the house with today's dollars and paying back the loan with dollars from up to 30 years in the future, which will be worth much less.