vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"As others have pointed out, you can't just pick a favorable number and rent for that amount. If you want to rent out your house, you must rent it for a value that a renter would agree to. For example there is a house on my street that has been looking for renters for 3 years. They want $2,500 a month. This covers their mortgage, and a little bit more for taxes and repairs. It has never been rented once. Other homes in my neighborhood rent for around $1,000 a month. There is no value to a renter in renting a house that is $1,500 more then a similar house 2 doors down. Now what you can look at is cost mitigation. So I am using data from my area. Houses in my part of Florida must have A/C running in the wet months to keep the moisture from ruining the house. This can easily be $100 a month (usually more). The city requires you to have water service, even when not occupied, though the cost is very small. Same with waste, which is a flat fee: $20 a month. Yard watering is a must during the dry months (if you want to keep grass). Let's say that comes out to $50 a month, year round. Pest control is a must, especially if your house has wooden parts (like floors or a roof). Even modest pest control is $25 a month. Property taxes around $240 a month. Let's say your mortgage is around $1,000 a month. That means to sit empty your house would cost $1,435. 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.
There is a fundamental flaw in this statement:  For example, a home bought cash $100,000 would have to be sold $242,726.247 30 years later just to make up with inflation, and that would be a 0% return. You forgot to deduct rent from your monthly carrying costs.  That changes the calculations significantly.   Your calculations are valid ONLY if you were to buy a house, and let it sit empty, which is unlikely.  Either you are going to live in it, and save yourself $1000 a month in rent, or, you are going to rent it out to someone, and earn an income of $1000 a month. Either way, you're up $1000 a month and this needs to be included.
Unless some factor is pushing up home prices at a faster rate than apartment prices.  Just guessing, but one reason might be that the increased potential to rent a home for AirBNB is higher than an apartment, and the increased value causes prices to rise faster in homes.
So how do you buy a house in or near Toronto?  What are the numbers? So basically $800,000 for a starter house. Here in the midwest you would need to make $250,000 minimum to qualify for that mortgage. 2.5 time income. Is everyone renting?  I see that in California?    Also rents don’t support the house value in the Bay Area. So basically property managers are renting not for profit but for value growth.
You apparently assume that pouring money into a landlord's pocket is a bad thing. Not necessarily. Whether it makes sense to purchase your own home or to live in a rental property varies based on the market prices and rents of properties. In the long term, real estate prices closely follow inflation. However, in some areas it may be possible that real estate prices have increased by more than inflation in the past, say, 10 years. This may mean that some (stupid) people assume that real estate prices continue to appreciate at this rate in the future. The price of real estates when compared to rents may become unrealistically high so that the rental yield becomes low, and the only reasonable way of obtaining money from real estate investments is price appreciation continuing. No, it will not continue forever. Furthermore, an individual real estate is a very poorly diversified investment. And a very risky investment, too: a mold problem can destroy the entire value of your investment, if you invest in only one property. Real estates are commonly said to be less risky than stocks, but this applies only to large real estate portfolios when compared with large stock portfolios. It is easier to build a large stock portfolio with a small amount of money to invest when compared to building a large real estate portfolio. Thus, I would consider this: how much return are you going to get (by not needing to pay rent, but needing to pay some minor maintenance costs) when purchasing your own home? How much does the home cost? What is the annual return on the investment? Is it larger than smaller when compared to investing the same amount of money in the stock market? As I said, an individual house is a more risky investment than a well-diversified stock portfolio. Thus, if a well-diversified stock portfolio yields 8% annually, I would demand 10% return from an individual house before considering to move my money from stocks to a house.
Your calculations are good as far as they go, but there are lots of other factors and pros and cons to each decision. Yes, you should certainly compare the monthly rent to what your mortgage payments would be, as you have done. Yes, you should consider how long you might live there. If you do move out, how difficult will it be to sell the house, given market conditions in your area? If you try to rent it, how difficult is it to find a tenant, and what rent could you expect to receive? Speaking of moving out and renting the place: Who will manage the property and do maintenance? Would you still be close enough to do this yourself? Would you be willing and able to spend the time? Or would you have to hire someone? Also, what if the tenant does not pay the rent? How difficult is it to evict someone in your area? Speaking from personal experience, I own a rental property in Ohio, and the law says you can evict someone with 3 days notice. But in practice they don't just leave, so then you have to take them to court. It takes months to get a court date and months longer before the police actually show up to order them out of the house. And you have to pay the lawyer and court fees. In that time they're living in your property rent free. In my case one tenant also totally trashed the place and stole everything that wasn't nailed down -- I had to spend $13,000 on repairs to a house worth a fraction of what you're talking about. Being a landlord is NOT just a matter of sitting back and collecting rent checks: there's a fair amount of work and a lot of risk. What do you have to pay the realtor, and what other closing costs would you have to pay? Where I live, realtors typically charge 6 to 7%. You may also have to pay for an appraisal, title search, and bunch of other little fees. Mortgage interest is deductible on your federal income taxes. Rent is not. If you own and something needs to be repaired, you have to pay for it. If you rent, the landlord has to pay for it.
Becoming a landlord is a pretty roundabout way to hedge against inflation. Why don't you research TIPs (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (?)) Over the very long term, a house will just about match inflation, but no more. I observe that it (median home price) has remarkably tight correlation to the mortgage one can buy with a week's worth of median income based on the 30 year rate. In other words, strip out inflation, wage gains, and the effect of the 30 year rate peaking at 18%, then dropping to 4%, and home prices have flatlined for a century.  I agree with mhoran. My answer is for the median, theoretical home. As they say, YMMV, your mileage may vary. As in, you can't have one.
Having recently been given basically the same question it hinges on a few major factors. What does your apartment provide (e.g. heating, internet/etc)? My (personal) example. With my numbers (which includes taxes, insurance estimates, minor repairs to home as needed), also ignoring all costs that are shared (e.g. food, internet, car insurance, etc), I am only making a difference around $450 per month. In 5 years I would save ($450 * 12 * 5) $27,000. However I also have to pay costs for buying the house (transfer deed, laywer fees, home inspections, etc) which in my case cost around $3000. Not to mention selling a home has some costs (I think around $1500+ in my area) as well as the realitor taking a cut (which I also think is around 2.5% = $7,225. So we can probably estimate you would lose around $15000 at most, buying and selling the home when all final costs come in. Which means in my case I would at most be saving around $12,000... probably less (assuming I did not miss anything). So basically 12,000/(12*5) = $200 per month saved. TLDR: I don't think its worthwhile, because there is a lot of risks involved, and houses tend to require a lot of extra work/money. With apartments you have little/no risk, and can freely leave at the end.
"When you compare the costs of paying your current mortgage with the rental income from the flat, you're not really comparing like with like. Firstly, the mortgage payments are covering both interest and capital repayments, so some of the 8k is money that is adding to your net worth. Secondly, the value of the flat (130k) is much more than the outstanding mortgage (80k) so if you did sell the flat and pay off the mortgage, you'd have 50k left in cash that could be invested to provide an income. The right way to compare the two options is to look at the different costs in each scenario. Let's assume the bigger house will cost 425k as it makes the figures work out nicely. If you buy the bigger house with a bigger mortgage, you will need to borrow 50k more so will end up with a mortgage of 130k, and you will still have the 8k/year from the flat. Depending on your other income, you might have to pay tax on the 8k/year - e.g. at 40% if you're a higher-rate taxpayer, leaving you with 4.8k/year. If you sell the flat, you'll have no mortgage repayments to make and no income from the flat. You'll be able to exactly buy the new house outright with the 50k left over after you repay the mortgage, on top of your old house. You'd also have to pay some costs to sell the flat that you wouldn't have to with the bigger mortgage, but you'd save on the costs of getting a new mortgage. They probably aren't the same, but let's simplify and assume they are. If anything the costs of selling the flat are likely to be higher than the mortgage costs. Viewed like that, you should look at the actual costs to you of having a 130k mortgage, and how much of that would be interest. Given that you'll be remortgaging, at current mortgage rates, I'd expect interest would only be 2-3%, i.e around 2.5k - 4k, so significantly less than the income from the flat even after tax. The total payment would be more because of capital repayment, but you could easily afford the cashflow difference.
"Chris, this is an arbitrage question with a twist: you cannot treat the location you want to live objectively. For example, why not SoCal instead of Texas? Yes, SoCal's expensive but what if you account for the weather? This question is very interesting for me personally: something I am going to focus on myself, soon, as well. To the question at hand: it's very hard to get a close estimate of the price from a single source, say, a website. The cost of a house is always negotiable and there's no sticker price, and there begins your problems. However, there are some publicly available information which websites aggregate, see: http://www.city-data.com/ Also, some heuristics might help: Rent is at-least as expensive as the monthly mortgage, (property) taxes, HOA fees, etc. Smart people have told me this, and this also makes sense to me as the landlord is in this business to make some money after all. However, there are also other hidden costs of home ownership that I am not aware of in details (and which I craftily sidestepped in my ""etc"" above) that could put a rental to be ""cheaper"". One example that comes to mind is you as a tenant get to complain if the washer-dryer misbehaves and demand the landlord get you a new one (see how you wouldn't make a sound were you to own it however) Such a website to gauge rentals: http://www.rentometer.com/ Houses cost more where the median income is more. Again, you cannot be objective about this because smart people like to live around smart people (and pay for the privilege). Turn again to http://www.city-data.com/ to get this information Better weather is more expensive than not so good weather. In the article you linked, notice the ratio of homes in California. Yes, I know of people who sold off their family ranches in Vancouver and Seattle to buy homes in Orange Country. In short, there is a lot of information you would have to gather from multiple sources, and even then never be sure that you did your best!
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. However, up to a few months ago houses were selling within 2 weeks of being listed. The house next door however, has been listed for over a month and has not had very much interest. So from this you can conclude that in 2007 we had bought near the bottom of the market, whilst now we are near the top of the market. What you also need to remember is that different areas of a country can have different cycles, so there is not just one property cycle but many property cycles in the same country.
why does it make sense financially to buy property and become a landlord? Because then your investment generates cash instead of just sitting idle. All taxes, fees and repairs aside it would take almost 21 years before I start making profits. No - your profit will be the rents that you collect (minus expenses). You still have an asset that is worth roughly what you paid for it (and might go up in value), so you don't need to recoup the entire cost of the property before making a profit. Compared to investing the same 150k in an ETF portfolio with conservative 4% in annual returns I would have made around 140k € after taxes in the same 21 years i.e. almost doubled the money. If you charge 600 € / month (and never miss a month of rental income), after 21 years you have made 151k € in rents plus you still have a property.  That property is most likely going to be worth more than you paid for it, so you should have at least 300k € in assets. Having said all that, it does NOT always make sense to invest in rental property.  Being a landlord can be a hard job, and there are many risks involved that are different that risks in financial investments.
Until you do sell it, this amount is tentative, based on the original purchase price and, perhaps, an intervening appraisal that shows that the property has appreciated. That is really all that it is and there's nothing magic about it, except that since you own your home, you have equity in it, while as a renter, you would not. It used to be (decades ago, when you needed 20% down to get a mortgage) that selling was the only time you'd be able to do anything with the equity in your home. Now you can ""take it out"" as described above (or borrow against it) thanks to various financial products. It is sometimes tempting to consider equity roughly equivalent to ""profit."" But some of it is your own money, contributed through the down payment, your monthly principal payment, and improvements you have made -- so ""cashing out"" isn't all profit, it's partly just you getting your own money back. And there are many additional expenses involved in owning a home, such as interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and various fees, not to mention the commissions when you buy or sell, which the equity calculation doesn't consider. Increasing equity reflects that you own a desirable property in a desirable location, that you have maintained and maybe even improved it, that you are financially responsible (i.e., paying your mortgage, taxes, etc.), and that your financial interests are aligned with your neighbors. All those things feel pretty good, and they should. Otherwise, it is just a number that the banks will sometimes let you borrow against. :-)"
A good quick filter to see if a property is worth looking at is if the total rent for the property for the year is equal to 10% of the price of the property.  For example, if the property is valued at $400,000 then the rent collected should be $40,000 for the entire year.  Which is $3,333.33 per month. If the property does not bring in at least 10% per year then it is not likely all the payments can be covered on the property.  It's more likely to be sinking money into it to keep it afloat. You would be exactly right, as you have to figure in insurance, utilities, taxes, maintenance/repair, mortgage payments, (new roof, new furnace, etc), drywall, paint, etc. Also as a good rule of thumb, expect a vacancy rate of at least 10% (or 1 month) per year as a precaution. If you have money sitting around, look into Real Estate Investment Trusts.  IIRC, the average dividend was north of 10% last year.  That is all money that comes back to you.  I'm not sure what the tax implications are in Australia, however in Canada dividends are taxed very favourably.  No mortgage, property tax, tenants to find, or maintenance either.
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. (Investment and loan can certainly be done together but would usually be done as completely separate contracts, one loan, one investment with no adjustment between the two over time.) To do both investment and loan would be unusual but certainly be possible, I would imagine; however that is not the case here as being described. I am not familiar with contracts that do both so as to take over the equity/ownership/investment over time while also reducing loan balance. Perhaps some forms of rent-to-own work that way, something to look into — still, usually rent-to-own means that until the renter owns it 100%, the landlord owns 100%, rather than a gradual % transfer over time (gradual transfer would imply co-ownership for a long time, something that most landlords would be reluctant to do). Transfer of any particular % of real estate ownership typically requires filing documents with the county and may incur fees. I am not aware of counties that allow gradual % transfer with one single filing. Still, the courts may honor a contract that does such gradual transfer outside of county filings. If so, what should I do? Explain the situation to your parents, and, in particular, however far out of balance the rental rate may be. Decide for yourself if you want to rent vs. buy, and where (that property or some other). If your parents are fair people, they should be open to negotiation. If not, you might need a lawyer. I suspect that a lawyer would be able to find several issues with which to challenge the contract.
Some highly pessimistic things worth noting to go alongside all the stability and tax break upside that homes generally provide: Negative equity is no joke and basically the only thing that bankrupts the middle classes consistently en masse. The UK is at the end of a huge housing bull run where rents are extremely cheap relative to buying (often in the 1% range within the M25), Brexit is looming and interest rates could well sky rocket with inflation. Borrowing ~500k to buy a highly illiquid asset you might have to fire sale in case of emergency/job loss etc for 300k in a few years when lots of (relatively) cheap rental housing is available to rent risk free, could be argued to be a highly lopsided and dangerous bet vs the alternatives. Locking in 'preferential' mortgage rates can be a huge trap: low interest rates generally increase asset values. If/when they rise, assets fall in value as the demand shrinks, making you highly exposed to huge losses if you need to sell before it is paid off. In the case of housing this can be exceptionally vicious as the liquidity dramatically dries up during falls, meaning fire sales become much more severe than they are for more liquid assets like stock. Weirdly and unlike most products, people tend to buy the very best house they can get leverage for, rather than work out what they need/want and finding the best value equivalent. If a bank will lend you £20 a day to buy lunch, and you can just afford to pay it, do you hunt out the very best £20 lunch you can every day, or do you make some solid compromises so you can save money for other things etc? You seem to be hunting very close to the absolute peak amount you can spend on these numbers. Related to above, at that level of mortgage/salary you have very little margin for error if either of you lose jobs etc. Houses are much more expensive to maintain/trade than most people think. You spend ~2-5% every time you buy and sell, and you can easily spend 2-20k+ a year depending what happens just keeping the thing watertight, paid for, liveable and staying up. You need to factor this in and be pessimistic when you do.
More possible considerations: Comparability with other properties.  Maybe properties that rent for $972 have more amenities than this one (parking, laundry, yard, etc) or are in better repair.  Or maybe the $972 property is a block closer to campus and thus commands 30% higher rent (that can happen).  Condition of property.  You know nothing about this until you see it.  It could be in such bad shape that you can't legally rent it until you spend a lot of money fixing it.  Or it may just be run down or outdated: still inhabitable but not as attractive to renters, leading to lower rent and/or longer vacancy periods.  Do you accept that, or spend a lot of money to renovate? Collecting the rent.  Tenants don't necessarily always pay their rent on time, or at all.  If a tenant quits paying, you incur significant expenses to evict them and then find a new tenant, and all the while, you collect no rent. There could be a tenant in place paying a much lower rent.  Rent control or a long lease may prevent you from raising it.  If you are able to raise it, and the tenant doesn't want to pay, see above. Maintenance and more maintenance.  College students could be hard on the property; one good kegger could easily cause more damage than their security deposits will cover. Being near a university doesn't guarantee you an easy time renting it.  It suggests the demand is high, but maybe the supply is even higher.  Renting to college students has additional issues.  They are less likely to have incomes large enough to satisfy you that they can pay the rent.  Are you willing to deal with cosigners?  If a student quits paying, are you willing to try to collect from their cosigning parents in another state?  And you'll probably have many tenants (roommates) living in the house.  They will come and go separately and unexpectedly, complicating your leasing arrangements.  And you may well get drawn in to disputes between them.