Posted on 08/31/2014 7:53:15 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Between 1970 and 1990, the population of Philadelphia shrank by a quarter, dropping from 1.95 to 1.59 million. Like many American cities, it seemed caught in a downward spiral.
Since then like many American cities Philadelphia has stabilized. The population now appears to have bottomed out at the millennium, and has been regaining residents over the past decade. But as it rebounds, Philly is becoming a different kind of city.
In the two most recent decades, which comprise the bounce of the citys population curve, owner-occupied housing dropped even more steeply than in the 70s and 80s. Between 2000 and 2012, the percentage of Philly houses and apartments inhabited by owners dropped from 59 to 52, the second-sharpest decline among big U.S. cities during that time.
Meanwhile, renter-occupied housing exploded. More units are rented today in Philadelphia than in 1970, despite 400,000 fewer residents. According to a report from Pew Charitable Trusts, the size of the Philadelphia rental stock has grown by 37,000 since the millennium a gain of more than 10 percent.
Philadelphia is a concentrated case of a larger trend in American housing: We are increasingly renting instead of buying our homes. Rental household growth is rising at double the rate it has in previous decades. Developers are building more multi-family units than they have in years. Last month, the homeownership rate fell to a 19-year low, down to 64.7 percent from a peak of 69.2 percent in 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Yes, if we can get everyone back renting again it will keep them from building wealth and security for their old age.
Well that’s assuming that purchasing your home is your only investment. Many people who own their homes also own stocks, mutual funds, 401(k)s and even other real estate from which they derive rental income from.
We are all renters...
There are many, many people buying homes now, the interest rates are below 4%, the property taxes have stabilized and most end up paying less for a mortgage than renting the same type of home.
Bought our first house when interest rates were 16% in 1983, after 18 years, we sold and had over $200,000 equity which we used to buy two multifamily units and an 80 acre parcel of land. 13 years later one of our units is paid off, the 80 acre parcel is paid off and the two units combined gross $100,000 a year. We are self employed so it was necessary for us to invest in real estate to help us retire, it has been an amazing blessing.
Owning a home is good for America, good for families and good for a community, I see no downside of home ownership, until you start buying toys with your equity. The above story is what I tell all young first time home owners, if you decide to take a second mortgage, only do it for remodeling or to buy another home/rental. That is where people get into trouble, they buy toys and loose everything.
My rule of thumb is that no investment should comprise more than 5% of my net worth ... or 10% for a "closely held" investment (like an ownership stake in a self-managed company). I'd consider a home a "closely held" investment for the sake of this discussion, which means I would not be comfortable with $500,000 of equity in a home unless my net worth exceeded $5 million. In that kind of scenario I'd think that an "own vs. rent" discussion is largely academic.
The investments sunk into X would need to average more than my interest on the loan. That may or may not happen.
120K over 15 years vs 30 costs 51K vs 120K in interest. After 2 years, the 15 year loan has you paying off $500/month in principle, while the 30 year loan has you paying off $159/month on your principle.
During your third year of ownership, that works out to paying off 6,000 and paying off $1900.
You can decide if you think your stock investments will outperform that. Over a 30 year period, the answer is probably. Over 5-10 years, maybe not. The additional value in your home is something tangible being purchased, vs stocks that are here today and may be gone tomorrow.
Of course, if you are stupid enough to buy at the top of a bubble, your house will lose value - but it is much easier to see a housing bubble than a stock market one.
If you had invested $100,000 in an S&P 500 index fund on January 1st of 1983, it would have grown to more than $2.9 million by the end of 2013 ... and that's assuming that you didn't add a single penny to your original investment.
Actually not a bad idea but I'm sure I'd get killed on capital gains in the beginning.
That's true, but over a nine-year period that is not a bad "gamble" to make when: (1) you are dealing with historically low interest rates at the start of the nine-year period, and (2) the interest is tax deductible anyway (which means the investment would only need to average more than the effective interest rate, not the actual one.).
And buying at the top of a bubble is a terrible investment for two reasons:
1. The obvious problem with buying high.
2. The fact that the bubble is driven almost entirely by low interest rates, which means that you are not likely to ever face a scenario where you can refinance your mortgage at a lower rate, and at a time when declining interest rates have inflated the value of your asset.
The second point is an important one. Notice how some folks even here on this thread point out how well they did since the early 1980s. They point out that their first mortgages carried very high interest rates, but they may not understand that the declining interest rates are what drove up the value of their investments in the first place. This reinforces my prior statement that most people who buy homes buy a mortgage, not a home.
The additional value in your home is something tangible being purchased, vs stocks that are here today and may be gone tomorrow.
That's the beauty of an index fund. The whole aim of the fund management is that it accounts for the turnover of the companies. As long as there are at least 500 publicly held companies in the U.S., there will always be an S&P 500 index. More than 80 companies in the S&P 500 index have turned over since 2007, due to a combination of factors that include the demise of the company and the loss of market capitalization (they're no longer one of the 500 largest companies). But one of the most common reasons why a company is dropped from a major index like the S&P 500 is a merger or acquisition (ExxonMobil replacing Exxon and Mobil, Motorola Mobility acquired by Google, etc.).
That’s exactly what I did.
When we moved to our retirement home (a 1500 sf ranch on 2.5 acres) I pulled out all my equity and financed for 30 yrs fixed at 3.75%
I really believe inflation will eat my payments up.
Property taxes....well that’s another potential landmine.
If I had $500,000 of equity in a home I'd give some serious thought to selling the home and paying $250,000 cash for a smaller home, then investing the other $250,000 in $50,000 blocks.
I’ve got a lot of money in index funds. They can be a great investment. But if my house drops in value, I still have a place to live.
And in the example I gave above, during year 3 of a 15 year mortgage, $500 of my ‘rent’ goes to me, not the bank. $6000 a year, going from my ‘rent’ payment into my pocket - and that was year 3! By year 8, only about $300/month of my ‘rent’ is going to someone else. Try finding a house you can rent for $300/month - even in southern Arizona.
Hello,Salon....colored people and other minorities desire home ownership also. Racist much?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.