It's not a joke. I've found I'm almost exactly on the same page as this guy: http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/03/why-i-am-never-going-to-own-a-home-again/

Why would you think it's a joke?

Also, I've never owned a home, always rented.

I've always rented too, and plan on doing so for quite some time. But this is just the ramblings of a self-help hack writer.

Still suspicious this is just a joke.

Why wouldn't you own a home? Stop paying money each month to someone else's mortgage. The same funds, or less, could be paying your own. Agree with Invictus, has to be a joke.

Definitely not a joke. Anyway, my own anti-homeownership stance developed well before that article, I just offered it since it's pretty much in line with what I think and saves me the trouble of writing it.

Houses in my neighborhood are running USD $550K-$750K right now, which is an insane bet on your marriage and job lasting the next five years, to say nothing of the housing market itself. It could work out GREAT... or you could lose your ass. So much risk. If you do have a breakup or lose your job, and have to sell... you have problems.

Also, I expected disagreement (which makes for a good topic), but the fact that people think this is "a joke" speaks to how deep the home-ownership brainwashing goes. Let's get some facts and figures in here... last time I checked renting has been the better deal for like the last 20 years, when all the real expenses are involved. Time to research...

You pay a shit ton monthly either way.

tendmote, that's just an argument against getting a mortgage you can't afford. Which is obvious. Or should be after the unpleasantness from 2008. Buying real estate is a big deal, and you should only do it if you can STILL afford the payments if something goes wrong in your life.

Conflating home ownership being a bad idea with an unaffordable mortgage being a bad idea is ludicrous.

I've done both and it depends upon the place. Anyone that tells you that you can do whatever you want in your home has never dealt with a Home Ownership Association (HOA) where the crooks control the neighborhood through the agreement on what is allowed.

Best part of an apartment is you can move more easily to get away from your neighbors. Worst is that your neighbors can be a pain and are only a wall away.

Best part of a home is the neighbors can be far enough away to not annoy you. Worst part is you can lose money on a sale when you want to leave. After the home mortgage collapse we got to see how quickly home prices could fall.

For all the money you can save in rent by owning a home, you are stuck paying for repairs. I've had the air-conditioning go several times during hot Arizona summers and had to replace it twice in additional to repairs.

Agree 100% with Tendmote. Home ownership is an insane waste of money. And for whatever reason too many 20-30 somethings think that if they don't own a home they are a failure.

No, you're just not a fool who likes to waste money on nonsense.

Home ownership is like having an investment portfolio where you're overleveraged as fuck all on one property in one location.

This wouldn't be considered smart with anything else.

Need to address the marriage point. It's totally moot here. By getting married you're already risking lots of your property. The details depend on state law, but those investments you're making with the money not spent on a house could very well be fair game for the ex to go after in a divorce proceeding. Renting rather than

Here's the latest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/upshot/rent-or-buy-the-math-is-changing.html?abt=0002&abg=1

Now, every couple of years some other article comes out preaching the opposite thing, but... mortgages typically run 30 years. Do you cross your fingers and hope things are house prices are on an upswing when life changes force you to sell? Big bet, so volatile. It's insane.

buying a home is no way to avoid a messy divorce.


Don't know why it automatically posted like that.

That New York Times article only says that it may be a better idea for some people to rent rather than buy. No one's disputing that. Everyone's life is different.

That's hugely different from saying home ownership is a bad idea, full stop. It isn't. That's a crazy thing to think. Which is why we can't be surprised it's a view Putin33 holds.

@Invictus Yes divorces are messy but what makes things worse is having 100K disappear altogether because you had to sell the house into a down market.

As Putin33 points out, home ownership is a huge leveraged bet. It's not just all your eggs in one basket; it's eggs from the future going into that basket too.

"Yes divorces are messy but what makes things worse is having 100K disappear altogether because you had to sell the house into a down market."

If you were investing that money the ex could still get half of it, depending on what the state's laws are and what kind of investment it is. A central part of your argument is that you're doing better things with the money than paying off a mortgage. Just because the money's somewhere else doesn't mean it's not going to cause plenty of headaches in a divorce. You're also assuming that the house will have to be sold in the event of divorce, which is not necessarily the case.


If all your eggs are in that basket then you can't afford the mortgage and shouldn't have taken it to begin with! Why can't you understand the difference here?

My entire retirement plan revolves around renting to suckers like Tendmote.
Thanks for paying hundreds of thousands of dollars over your lifetime to pay for my 7trap figure retirement..

"If you were investing that money the ex could still get half of it,"

No, no, I mean the money is *gone*, 100K down in value on the house, that *nobody* gets. 50% of something would be fine. A leveraged bet on a particular house is a highly volatile investment. Most other investments are not so volatile. You lose with leverage, you lose your ass on a bigger bet than you otherwise could have made.

From a financial standpoint, home ownership is not for everyone. You need to factor in your income, your job stability/security, and the likelihood you will want to move and when. You also need to know your real estate market -- some areas are more stable value-wise than others, even in a down market.

For me, home ownership has been beneficial without question. Instead of paying rent to someone else, I've been building equity through mortgage payments and good decisions on the real estate market. On my first house, I gained $200,000 in four years. On my second and current house, which I've refinanced twice, I'm on a 30 year fixed paying substantially less in mortgage than I would to rent the same house. Between paying off the mortgage and buying in a good location, I'm about $400,000 ahead on this house over the last ten years. There's no way I could come close to matching that by renting. Had I invested differently, such as in the stock market, it could have been very bad.

"I gained $200,000 in four years"
"I'm about $400,000 ahead on this house"

That is some serious volatility. As I said, you either get rich or go broke buying a house. Congratulations, but this evidence supports my proposal: buying a house is a crazy bet.

I don't understand the scenario. What is the 100K being lost? Is it lost equity?

And anyhow, the money spent on rent is also *gone*. Gone without even the chance of going towards owning the real estate.


Once more, there is a difference between saying home ownership is a bad idea and saying an unaffordable mortgage is a bad idea. Each person and market is different. For many people, buying a home is one of the best things they do for themselves financially. Thinking owning real estate is a bad idea for all people in all scenarios is simply insane.

If you can afford to own, it's a much better proposition than rent. Rent is just throwing your money away.

Yeah, lost equity. People ate a lot of low-six-figure losses around here a few years ago. Apparently they sold to The Hanged Man...

It all depends on where you are buying. If your making a play at a gentrifying neighborhood, yes all bets are off, it could go either way. If you buy in an established neighborhood, the vol risk is much more limited.

Real estate , good real estate , is finite. With population only growing the demand will only go up. If your thinking short term, there could be volatility, if your thinking 15+ years it's a home run.

Still don't really see the point you're trying to make. Is it just IF you get divorced WHEN it's a down market AND you have to sell the family home, you take a big hit? Because that's an obvious and uninteresting point, which requires a very specific set of circumstances. I can't see how it cuts against home ownership at large.

And it's not as if these other "investments" will just magically make you money. You could take a bath on them too, and have plenty of trouble with divorce and how assets are divided.

@ssorenn That's part of my point. If you're thinking 15+ years, you're dreaming, nobody's life is that stable. If it works, you're in great shape, if your plan goes wrong, you're fucked. People end up having to dump the house and The Hanged Man scoops it up at a 400K discount. It's too risky...

@Invictus

"You could take a bath on them too"

Yeah, but a 20% drop in a 100K investment costs you 20K... and 20% drop on 100K leveraged into a $1M mortgage costs you 200K. It's the leveraged risk that smites you.