Display:
people don't see that interest payments are no different from home rental payments (you're "renting" the money), ie build up no capital. And when comparing renting to owning, you'd need to add up the impact of the amounts (for the difference between your mortgage payment and your rental for an euivalent place) that you'd save and, presumably get income on.

In practice, the main advantage of buying used to be that it represented a form of forced saving, allowing you to build up your patrimony. But with interest-only, 2/28, resettable and other fancy loans where you paid almost exclusively interest, the borrowers did not accumulate any equity unless there was a price increase... but they were on the hook for asset value losses.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Dec 12th, 2009 at 10:14:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the UK market, property almost always accumulates. The whole point of "buy-to-let" mortgages that were major creators of the recent property bubble here is that you don't pay off the equity, rental pays the interest and inflation increases the capital stake.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Dec 12th, 2009 at 10:29:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that's exactly what I said: interest payment and rent are substitutable, and actual wealth accumulation only comes from asset price inflation, a highly risky bet to make when you carry the risk of the downside (prices going down).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Dec 12th, 2009 at 10:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series