vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The big question is whether you will be flexible about when you'll get that house. The overall best investment (in terms of yielding a good risk/return ratio and requiring little effort) is a broad index fund (mutual or ETF), especially if you're contributing continuously and thereby take advantage of cost averaging. But the downside is that you have some volatility: during an economic downturn, your investment may be worth only half of what it's worth when the economy is booming. And of course it's very bad to have that happening just when you want to get your house. Then again, chances are that house prices will also go down in such times. If you want to avoid ever having to see the value of your investment go down, then you're pretty much stuck with things like your high-interest savings account (which sounds like a very good fit for your requirements.
"You're hearing alot of talk about housing (and by implication property) not being an investment today because on the downside of a market, the conventional wisdom is to be negative about buying things that have lost value. Just as it was dumb to listen to your coworker about hot .Com IPOs in 1999, it's dumb to listen to the real estate naysayers now. Here's another question along a similar vein: Were stocks a good investment in the spring of 2009?  The conventional wisdom said: ""No, stocks are scary! Buy T-Bills or Gold Bullion!"". The people who made money said: ""Wait a second, Goldman Sachs is down like 75%? IBM is down like 30%, are they going anywhere? Time to buy."" The wrong house is a poor investment in any economy. Buying a house in Detriot in 1970 was not a good move. Buying a house that needs $50k in work, not a good move. Buying a condo with a bankrupt HOA in Florida is not a good idea. But a good house that is well cared for is a great investment.  I'm living in a house right now that is 80 years old, well maintained and affordable on a single income. A similar home a few blocks away sold in May for the same price as we paid in 2006. I'm paying about 20% less than I would for an apartment, and we'll think about moving in 2016 or 2017, by which time I'll probably have put $30-50k into the house. (Roof, kitchen, exterior painting, minor renovation)"
It might be a regional depression, weather events, failed large businesses, failed city/local governments, etc. It could go up because businesses moved in, a new highway is built, state/local taxes decline, etc. My point is, homes are not long term investments. They can be short term ones, but only in limited circumstances and there is a high degree of risk involved. So don't let that be a driving point of your decision. Instead you need to focus on other factors. Such as: what is really going on with the house you are currently in? Why would they lose it? Can you help out, and, should you help out? If things are precarious, it might make more sense to sell that home now and everyone move into separate locations, possibly different rentals or apartments. If they are foreclosed on then they will be in a world of financial hurt for a long time. If we ignore your parents situation, then one piece of advice I would give you is this: Rent the cheapest apartment you can find that is still a ""safe"" place to live in. Put every dollar you can into some type of savings/investment that will actually grow. Stay there for 5+ years, then go pay cash for a nice home. Making $75k a year while single means that you don't need much to live on. In other words, live extremely cheap now so you can enjoy a fantastic living experience later that is free from financial fear. You should be able to put $30k+ per year aside going this route. edit: A bit of support data for those that somehow think buying a home on a mortgage is somehow a good investment: Robert Shiller, who won a Nobel prize in economics and who predicted the bursting of the housing bubble, has shown that a house is not a good investment. Why? First, home prices (adjusted for inflation) have been virtually unchanged for the past 100 years. (link 1, link 2) Second, after you add in the costs of maintenance alone then those costs plus what you've paid for the home will exceed what you get out of it. Adding in the cost of a mortgage could easily double or even triple the price you paid which makes things even worse.
well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property;  industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks.  Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria.
"For the vast majority, ""buying"" a house via a mortgage is not an investment. I use quotes around buying because from a technical perspective you don't own anything until you've paid it off; this is often an important point that people forget. It's highly unlikely you'll make more on it than the amount you put into it (interest, repairs, etc). Even with relatively low interest rates. The people who successfully invest in homes are those that use actual cash (not borrowed) to buy a home at well below market value. They then clean it up and make enough repairs to make it marketable and sell it shortly there after. Sometimes these people get hosed if the housing market tumbles to the point that the home is now worth less than the amount they put into it. This is especially problematic if they used bank loans to get the process going. They were actually the hardest hit when the housing bubble popped several years ago. Well, them and the people who bought on interest only loans or had balloon payments. Whereas the people who use a mortgage are essentially treating it like a bank account with a negative interest rate. For example, $180k loan on a 30 yr fixed at 4% will mean a total payout of around $310k, excluding normal repairs like roofs, carpet, etc. Due to how mortgage's work, most of the interest is collected during the first half of the loan period. So selling it within 2 to 5 years is usually problematic unless the local housing market has really skyrocketed. Housing markets move up and down all the time due to a hundred different things completely out of your control. It might be a regional depression, weather events, failed large businesses, failed city/local governments, etc. It could go up because businesses moved in, a new highway is built, state/local taxes decline, etc. My point is, homes are not long term investments. They can be short term ones, but only in limited circumstances and there is a high degree of risk involved. So don't let that be a driving point of your decision. Instead you need to focus on other factors. Such as: what is really going on with the house you are currently in? Why would they lose it?
For an investment to appreciate in value, one of two things needs to happen: 1) Demand for that particular item needs to increase. 2) The supply of that item needs to decrease. Houses are good because everyone needs a place to live, but there is a finite amount of land.  No matter how much you invest in Manhatten real estate, Manhatten ain't growin'.  The trick there is to find an area that people are going to want to live in when you're ready to sell.  Specific vintages of wines and spirits are another good example, because it's literally impossible to create more of that vintage. Cars, and most consumer goods, usually don't appreciate because they don't last long enough.  Most cars are resold within three to five years after the initial purchase.  This is also why jewelry is a good investment; properly cared for, it can last centuries without wearing out. So, look for something durable that has a limited supply.
"Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision.  As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house?  Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important?  Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious.  Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you.  The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible.  They are always looking to ""sheer the sheep"". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home?  Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort.  With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more."
There are thousands of dealers in the real estate market which claims to provide you the best homes at lowest price but before investing such a huge amount in property, one should take decision wisely. As investing in your home is a life time investment and it must be cost effective.
Morpheus, I think you are approaching this question the wrong way. The interest rate is not the most important consideration; you also need to consider the other characteristics of the investment. Money in a bank account is very liquid; you can do anything you want with it. Equity in a house is very illiquid; it is hard and expensive to access. Let's say you have $25,000 to either go towards a bigger downpayment or to invest. What happens if you lose your job? If you have $25,000 in the bank, you have a lot of flexibility; you can pay a mortgage for a number of months, or you could use it to relocate. If you put the money in the house, you cannot access it at all; without a job you can't refi or get a home equity loan. Your only recourse would be to sell the house, which might not be possible if there are systemic issues (such as the ones in the real estate crash). Even if you can refi or get a home equity loan, you will have to pay fees. My advice is to put the money somewhere else. If your term is long (say, 10 years or so), I would put the money in an index fund.
So real estate isn't a good investment?  Yeah, it's went down at times.  Still worth more now then say 15, 25 and 50 years ago right?   Is nothing a good investment because it has bad years?    Im not saying bitcoin is the best shit ever and it's perfect and everyone should buy it.  But we've heard time and time again that it was in its death throws. Yet after every dip, it recovers and reaches new highs.
"As someone who's done quit a bit of home improvement and seen positive ROI, I can speak from some personal experience.  All of this assumes you do the unskilled labor yourself and shop around for relatively cheap plumbers, electricians, etc. First, never underestimate the resale value added by a can of paint.  This assumes you have, or know someone with a good sense of style that can help improve the aesthetics of the home significantly.  White walls can be so boring to homebuyers and so many of them can't see through the 1/16 of an inch of white paint. Second, look for shortcomings in the house as-is. Anyway, these are some common upgrades.  The big thing is to find something you are reasonably comfortable doing yourself and that you will enjoy.  Realize that if you're new to this most projects will cost twice what you budget and take four times as long!  The pride of having done it yourself and put in the sweat equity makes it worth it though (usually). Edit To better answer your modified question, I'm adding to my answer.  So if I understand it, your question is now ""At what rate is it sane to invest in our house vs. outside investments"".  This is really just a matter of balancing risk vs. lifestyle.  With most upgrades there is no financial benefit to investing in upgrading your home now vs. 5 years from now right before you sell.  You could be making 10% in mutual funds until then and then invest in the upgrades right before you sell.  There is obviously a physical limit to how fast you can do these improvements yourself, but front-loading this now at the beginning of your timeframe as opposed to the end is not an investment decision, it is a lifestyle decision.  Not saying ""Don't do it"", but don't rationalize it to yourself as ""we're saving money by doing this now.""  Maybe use the rationalization ""We want to enjoy these upgrades and not just add them before we move out."" One exception to that - I'd plant any trees now and make sure they have a good water supply.  Good trees take a while to grow, and doing that sooner rather than later will help."
There are two parts to this. Firstly, if you are also living in the property you have bought, then you should not consider it to be an investment. You need it to provide shelter, and the market value is irrelevant unless/until you decide to move. Of course, if your move is forced at a time not of your choosing then if the market value has dropped, you might lose out. No-one can accurately predict the housing market any more than they can predict interest rates on normal savings accounts, the movement of the stock market, etc.  Secondly, if you just have a lump sum and you want to invest it safely, the bank is one of the safest places to keep it. It is protected / underwritten by EU law (assuming you are in the EU) up to €100,000. See for example here which is about the UK and Brexit in particular but mentions the EU blanket protection. The other things you could do with it - buy property, gold, art works, stocks and shares, whatever thing you think will be least likely to lose value over time - would not be protected in the same way.
It wouldn't surprise me to see a country's return to show Inflation + 2-4%, on average. The members of this board are from all over the world, but those in a low inflation country, as the US,Canada, and Australia are right now, would be used to a long term return of 8-10%, with sub 2% inflation.  In your case, the 20% return is looking backwards, hindsight, and not a guarantee. Your country's 10 year bonds are just under 10%. The difference between the 10% gov bond and the 20% market return reflects the difference between a 'guaranteed' return vs a risky one.  Stocks and homes have different return profiles over the decades. A home tends to cost what some hour's pay per month can afford to finance.  (To explain - In the US, the median home cost will center around what the median earner can finance with about a week's pay per month. This is my own observation, and it tends to be correct in the long term. When median homes are too high or low compared to this, they must tend back toward equilibrium.)  Your home will grow in value according to my thesis, but an investment home has both value that can rise or fall, as well as the monthly rent. This provides total return as a stock had growth and dividends.  Regardless of country, I can't predict the future, only point out a potential flaw in your plan.
"If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably ""Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,"" not ""is it smart to buy a house in college.""  In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck."
In comparing housing to investing in a stock market, the author claims housing is a poor investment because houses depreciate.  He's forgetting about the land component.  The improvement on the land is only a portion of the value, and it's the only part that depreciates.  In markets where the prices have risen significantly the value is largely in the land.   Land has a finite supply, which is even more evident when we are looking at land located where people actually want to live.  While strong banking controls kept Canada from suffering the same crash in the second half of the 2000's; availability of land where people actually want to live is likely responsible for a lot of the divergence between the US and Canada.  Most Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the border between the two countries; as the weather makes living more northern undesirable.  The US has lots of available land in places with a better climate than a lot of Canada.  Sure, there's some highly desirable places to live in the US where prices have skyrocketed; but the scarcity of desirable land affects all of Canada and is not going to go away.
If you are going to live in the house for awhile, you can probably use a regular mortgage. Shop around and look for a mortgage program that works. Look at local banks/credit unions, particularly those with community development programs.  Usually an investment mortgage is higher rate, higher payment and has higher underwriting standards.
One way of looking at it is that your equity in your house is an investment in a particular class of asset, and investing further in that asset class may drive you away from, rather than towards, your preferred asset mix. It's pretty common here in New Zealand for people's only investments to be their homes and rental properties. I wish those people luck when our current property boom ends.
"I don't think there is a recession proof investment.Every investment is bound to their ups and downs.  If you buy land, a change in law can change the whole situation it may become worthless, same applies for home as well.  Gold - dependent on world economy.  Stock - dependent on world economy Best way is to stay ever vigilant of world around you and keep shuffling from one investment to another balance out your portfolio.  ""The most valuable commodity I know of is information."" - Wall Street -movie"
Your best bet is to talk with a banker about your specific plans.   One of the causes of the housing crash was an 80/20 loan.  There you would get a first for 80% of the value of a home and 20% on a HELOC for the rest.  This would help the buyer avoid PMI.  Editorially, the reason this was popular was because the buyer could not afford the home with the PMI and did not have a down payment.  They were simply cutting things too close. Could you find a banker willing to do something like this, I bet you could. In your case it seems like you are attempting to increase the value of your home by using money to do an improvement so the situation is better.  However, sizable improvements rarely return 100% or more on investments.  Typically, I would think, the bank would want you to have some money invested too.  So if you wanted to put in a pool, a smart banker would have you put in about 60% of the costs as pools typically have a 40% ROI.   However, I bet you can find a banker that would loan you 100%. You don't seem to be looking for advice on making a smart money decision, and it is difficult to render a verdict as very little detail is supplied about your specific situation. However, while certain decisions might look very profitable on paper, they rarely take into consideration risk.
Unless you plan to sell your home and live in a box during your retirement I wouldn't consider it an investment that is a viable replacement for a retirement account. Consider this: Even if housing prices DO go way up, you still need a place to live. When you sell that house and try to buy another one to live in, you will find that the other houses went up in price too, negating your gain. The only way this might work is if you buy a much bigger house than you will need later and trade down to pull out some equity, or consider a reverse-mortgage for retirement income.
"Realtor.com gives the following list of ""best renovations for the money"" and they include ROI numbers: You can see that people generally get ~80-85% of their money back on home improvement projects.  If the housing market is just red hot in your area, and you bought a house with some severe issues that caused the sale price to be significantly undervalued per square foot, then you're more likely to get more than average returns on your investment.  If you manage to save a lot of money on the renovations (ie, inexpensive materials or you DIY and save on labor) then your costs will be lower and your ROI higher.   You can see from the list above that the most profitable improvements tend to be kitchen, bath, windows, and adding additional living space. However, it only takes a few hours of watching HGTV to conclude that renovations often cost more than homeowners expect.  This is often due to unexpected issues or costs that were not apparent before the work started."
"I agree with Joe Taxpayer that a lot of details are missing to really evaluate it as an investment... for context, I own a few investment properties including a 'small' 10+ unit apartment complex. My answer might be more than you really want/need, (it kind of turned into Real Estate Investing 101), but to be fair you're really asking 3 different questions here: your headline asks ""how effective are Condo/Hotel developments as investments?"" An answer to that is... sometimes, very. These are a way for you-the investor-to get higher rents per sq. ft. as an owner, and for the hotel to limit its risks and access additional development funding. By your description, it sounds like this particular company is taking a substantial cut of rents. I don't know this property segment specifically, but I can give you my insight for longer-term apartment rentals... the numbers are the same at heart. The other two questions you're implying are ""How effective is THIS condo/hotel development?"" and ""Should you buy into it?"" If you have the funds and the financial wherewithal to honestly consider this, then I am sure that you don't need your hand held for the investment pros/cons warnings of the last question. But let me give you some of my insight as far as the way to evaluate an investment property, and a few other questions you might ask yourself before you make the decision to buy or perhaps to invest somewhere else. The finance side of real estate can be simple, or complicated. It sounds like you have a good start evaluating it, but here's what I would do: Start with figuring out how much revenue you will actually 'see': Gross Potential Income: 365 days x Average Rent for the Room = GPI (minus) Vacancy... you'll have to figure this out... you'll actually do the math as (Vacancy Rate %) x GPI (equals) Effective Potential Income = EPI Then find out how much you will actually pocket at the end of the day as operating income: Take EPI (minus) Operating expenses ... Utilities ... Maintenace ...