domain
stringclasses 11
values | post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| history
stringlengths 60
8.9k
| title
stringlengths 7
304
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 32
32
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 32
32
| created_at_utc_A
float64 1.26B
1.68B
| created_at_utc_B
float64 1.26B
1.68B
| score_A
int64 2
1.75k
| score_B
int64 3
5.43k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 6
2.05k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 7
2.05k
| labels
int64 0
0
| overlap_ratio
float64 0.01
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
15.2M
| score_ratio
float64 1
1.72k
| len_ratio
float64 1
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 8c2d2a6fa1114cf18838e1ef89090e31 | 941f25be7d5d43159f38cdf26a81b4e5 | 1,676,837,069 | 1,676,857,718 | 116 | 176 | Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.042553 | 20,649 | 1.517241 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 8c2d2a6fa1114cf18838e1ef89090e31 | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,837,069 | 1,677,257,308 | 116 | 165 | Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.057377 | 420,239 | 1.422414 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 1b72a43e457d4e199bdfb1c380aaf7f3 | 77e6819bc34047c4bbc47cb504e0fce4 | 1,676,839,694 | 1,676,839,930 | 81 | 176 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 236 | 2.17284 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 1b72a43e457d4e199bdfb1c380aaf7f3 | 6f29d9a9feb648d8ab52e2166908143e | 1,676,839,694 | 1,676,840,099 | 81 | 165 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.06993 | 405 | 2.037037 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 1b72a43e457d4e199bdfb1c380aaf7f3 | dfca63c75a4e4aeb80b0aebe5c10ce35 | 1,676,839,694 | 1,676,845,179 | 81 | 176 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 5,485 | 2.17284 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 1b72a43e457d4e199bdfb1c380aaf7f3 | 95ca167cd3e84c01972d55c94488088c | 1,676,839,694 | 1,676,854,361 | 81 | 165 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.06993 | 14,667 | 2.037037 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 1b72a43e457d4e199bdfb1c380aaf7f3 | 941f25be7d5d43159f38cdf26a81b4e5 | 1,676,839,694 | 1,676,857,718 | 81 | 176 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 18,024 | 2.17284 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 1b72a43e457d4e199bdfb1c380aaf7f3 | bab56cb4bdbb40a3aa51431849d7512f | 1,676,839,694 | 1,676,873,461 | 81 | 116 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.052632 | 33,767 | 1.432099 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 1b72a43e457d4e199bdfb1c380aaf7f3 | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,839,694 | 1,676,909,696 | 81 | 176 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 70,002 | 2.17284 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 1b72a43e457d4e199bdfb1c380aaf7f3 | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,839,694 | 1,677,257,308 | 81 | 165 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.06993 | 417,614 | 2.037037 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 6f29d9a9feb648d8ab52e2166908143e | dfca63c75a4e4aeb80b0aebe5c10ce35 | 1,676,840,099 | 1,676,845,179 | 165 | 176 | As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.042735 | 5,080 | 1.066667 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | 95ca167cd3e84c01972d55c94488088c | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,854,361 | 28 | 165 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.108434 | 1,608 | 5.892857 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,855,304 | 28 | 51 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| 0 | 0.045198 | 2,551 | 1.821429 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | 941f25be7d5d43159f38cdf26a81b4e5 | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,857,718 | 28 | 176 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.04 | 4,965 | 6.285714 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | d92688a7f4124be09d8a7b5143bec601 | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,859,215 | 28 | 81 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.08 | 6,462 | 2.892857 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | 4ff8586a7ba941ea8ea090b9b50c4b63 | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,861,484 | 28 | 176 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.04 | 8,731 | 6.285714 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | c0207f7adb4a4281a6cff77f9caab828 | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,873,219 | 28 | 40 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| I'm 45. I don't ever plan to buy a house again. I've owned several. Even when I was fortunate enough to be selling in a hot market, I never came out ahead after fees, commissions, etc., and it was a beating to sell each one.
I have the ability to make a 20% down payment on a house, but I would rather keep that 20% in the market as opposed to putting it into a house and immediately making it an illiquid asset that will also immediately lose 6% to a realtor when I need to sell it.
Remember....when you retire, you aren't going to need a 5-bedroom house. Your kids will be off living their own lives. My parents are retired, 75 years old, and they own a massive 5-bedroom house. They use about 15% of it. They don't even go upstairs. It's ridiculous.
| 0 | 0.046512 | 20,466 | 1.428571 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | bab56cb4bdbb40a3aa51431849d7512f | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,873,461 | 28 | 116 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.067308 | 20,708 | 4.142857 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | 762369e9c626412e9838d3b5e59a9e0e | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,885,266 | 28 | 81 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.08 | 32,513 | 2.892857 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | e710d57e178f4b80972ecaf5b413940e | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,896,917 | 28 | 116 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.067308 | 44,164 | 4.142857 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,852,753 | 1,676,909,696 | 28 | 176 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.04 | 56,943 | 6.285714 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,852,753 | 1,677,257,308 | 28 | 165 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.108434 | 404,555 | 5.892857 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | eb86d8a939224d2eac38801a7eb2842a | a89d2b412a7840b1b693de0e89a0dbb1 | 1,676,852,753 | 1,677,257,749 | 28 | 81 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.08 | 404,996 | 2.892857 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 95ca167cd3e84c01972d55c94488088c | 941f25be7d5d43159f38cdf26a81b4e5 | 1,676,854,361 | 1,676,857,718 | 165 | 176 | As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.042735 | 3,357 | 1.066667 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | 941f25be7d5d43159f38cdf26a81b4e5 | 1,676,855,304 | 1,676,857,718 | 51 | 176 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.033613 | 2,414 | 3.45098 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | d92688a7f4124be09d8a7b5143bec601 | 1,676,855,304 | 1,676,859,215 | 51 | 81 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.047619 | 3,911 | 1.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | 4ff8586a7ba941ea8ea090b9b50c4b63 | 1,676,855,304 | 1,676,861,484 | 51 | 176 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.033613 | 6,180 | 3.45098 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | bab56cb4bdbb40a3aa51431849d7512f | 1,676,855,304 | 1,676,873,461 | 51 | 116 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.04 | 18,157 | 2.27451 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | 762369e9c626412e9838d3b5e59a9e0e | 1,676,855,304 | 1,676,885,266 | 51 | 81 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.047619 | 29,962 | 1.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | e710d57e178f4b80972ecaf5b413940e | 1,676,855,304 | 1,676,896,917 | 51 | 116 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.04 | 41,613 | 2.27451 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,855,304 | 1,676,909,696 | 51 | 176 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.033613 | 54,392 | 3.45098 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,855,304 | 1,677,257,308 | 51 | 165 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.062827 | 402,004 | 3.235294 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 83d1971be4e34d27a9fef9aad64e11a0 | a89d2b412a7840b1b693de0e89a0dbb1 | 1,676,855,304 | 1,677,257,749 | 51 | 81 | This could be a ridiculous take on it. I’ve owned since me and my wife were in our mid 20’s. We’ve raised 3 of our children and have one left. There is a non monetary value to owning a house and providing a stable home for your family. I wouldn’t try to out a number on it. But it’s not insignificant. Around 8 years ago we sold our large house and bought a smaller one in a cheaper area.
I’m in the trades and have seen way to many times the old couple living in a huge house that’s essentially falling apart. Partly due to age and partly due to the size of the house. Me and my wife planned ahead and bought our “last” house early. A smallish ranch so we’d never be worrying about climbing stairs as we get older. And something I can handle major repairs on myself. And now I see one bedroom apartments with a single parking spot cost more than my entire mortgage/taxes/insurance bill.
I consider our house part of our bond allocation. As it’s a fixed cost that is easy to make. And by the time I retire it’ll be simply a taxes and insurance payment. Any major repairs would come out of the emergency fund we’ve built. I guess all this is about sometimes you don’t need to make the best decision by what a calculator says. If you don’t want to own then don’t. Or maybe wait a couple years and see if the housing market corrects some. Or maybe you just want to never settle in one area. Housing unlike most investments can’t be measured just by the dollars and cents sometimes.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.047619 | 402,445 | 1.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | 941f25be7d5d43159f38cdf26a81b4e5 | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,857,718 | 4 | 176 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.071429 | 1,890 | 44 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | d92688a7f4124be09d8a7b5143bec601 | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,859,215 | 4 | 81 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.070423 | 3,387 | 20.25 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | 4ff8586a7ba941ea8ea090b9b50c4b63 | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,861,484 | 4 | 176 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.071429 | 5,656 | 44 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | c0207f7adb4a4281a6cff77f9caab828 | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,873,219 | 4 | 40 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| I'm 45. I don't ever plan to buy a house again. I've owned several. Even when I was fortunate enough to be selling in a hot market, I never came out ahead after fees, commissions, etc., and it was a beating to sell each one.
I have the ability to make a 20% down payment on a house, but I would rather keep that 20% in the market as opposed to putting it into a house and immediately making it an illiquid asset that will also immediately lose 6% to a realtor when I need to sell it.
Remember....when you retire, you aren't going to need a 5-bedroom house. Your kids will be off living their own lives. My parents are retired, 75 years old, and they own a massive 5-bedroom house. They use about 15% of it. They don't even go upstairs. It's ridiculous.
| 0 | 0.055556 | 17,391 | 10 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | bab56cb4bdbb40a3aa51431849d7512f | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,873,461 | 4 | 116 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.061224 | 17,633 | 29 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | 4d61c6f681eb4392bcf071248259a49a | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,883,333 | 4 | 116 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.061224 | 27,505 | 29 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | 762369e9c626412e9838d3b5e59a9e0e | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,885,266 | 4 | 81 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.070423 | 29,438 | 20.25 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | e710d57e178f4b80972ecaf5b413940e | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,896,917 | 4 | 116 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.061224 | 41,089 | 29 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | d9317711ccf242fd954f3402a9ea5618 | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,904,028 | 4 | 28 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| 0 | 0.04902 | 48,200 | 7 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,855,828 | 1,676,909,696 | 4 | 176 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.071429 | 53,868 | 44 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,855,828 | 1,677,257,308 | 4 | 165 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.059322 | 401,480 | 41.25 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | a125d7e3a5304f849a57468816735343 | a89d2b412a7840b1b693de0e89a0dbb1 | 1,676,855,828 | 1,677,257,749 | 4 | 81 | It all depends on where you live. In the south East of England, my mortgage is half the monthly cost compared to renting a similar home.
Mortgage £567 per month
Rent 11-1300 per month
No brainer to have a mortgage even if I move in two years.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.070423 | 401,921 | 20.25 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | d92688a7f4124be09d8a7b5143bec601 | 4ff8586a7ba941ea8ea090b9b50c4b63 | 1,676,859,215 | 1,676,861,484 | 81 | 176 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 2,269 | 2.17284 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | d92688a7f4124be09d8a7b5143bec601 | bab56cb4bdbb40a3aa51431849d7512f | 1,676,859,215 | 1,676,873,461 | 81 | 116 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.052632 | 14,246 | 1.432099 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | d92688a7f4124be09d8a7b5143bec601 | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,859,215 | 1,676,909,696 | 81 | 176 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 50,481 | 2.17284 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | d92688a7f4124be09d8a7b5143bec601 | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,859,215 | 1,677,257,308 | 81 | 165 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.06993 | 398,093 | 2.037037 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | c0207f7adb4a4281a6cff77f9caab828 | bab56cb4bdbb40a3aa51431849d7512f | 1,676,873,219 | 1,676,873,461 | 40 | 116 | I'm 45. I don't ever plan to buy a house again. I've owned several. Even when I was fortunate enough to be selling in a hot market, I never came out ahead after fees, commissions, etc., and it was a beating to sell each one.
I have the ability to make a 20% down payment on a house, but I would rather keep that 20% in the market as opposed to putting it into a house and immediately making it an illiquid asset that will also immediately lose 6% to a realtor when I need to sell it.
Remember....when you retire, you aren't going to need a 5-bedroom house. Your kids will be off living their own lives. My parents are retired, 75 years old, and they own a massive 5-bedroom house. They use about 15% of it. They don't even go upstairs. It's ridiculous.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.052632 | 242 | 2.9 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | c0207f7adb4a4281a6cff77f9caab828 | 762369e9c626412e9838d3b5e59a9e0e | 1,676,873,219 | 1,676,885,266 | 40 | 81 | I'm 45. I don't ever plan to buy a house again. I've owned several. Even when I was fortunate enough to be selling in a hot market, I never came out ahead after fees, commissions, etc., and it was a beating to sell each one.
I have the ability to make a 20% down payment on a house, but I would rather keep that 20% in the market as opposed to putting it into a house and immediately making it an illiquid asset that will also immediately lose 6% to a realtor when I need to sell it.
Remember....when you retire, you aren't going to need a 5-bedroom house. Your kids will be off living their own lives. My parents are retired, 75 years old, and they own a massive 5-bedroom house. They use about 15% of it. They don't even go upstairs. It's ridiculous.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.083333 | 12,047 | 2.025 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | c0207f7adb4a4281a6cff77f9caab828 | e710d57e178f4b80972ecaf5b413940e | 1,676,873,219 | 1,676,896,917 | 40 | 116 | I'm 45. I don't ever plan to buy a house again. I've owned several. Even when I was fortunate enough to be selling in a hot market, I never came out ahead after fees, commissions, etc., and it was a beating to sell each one.
I have the ability to make a 20% down payment on a house, but I would rather keep that 20% in the market as opposed to putting it into a house and immediately making it an illiquid asset that will also immediately lose 6% to a realtor when I need to sell it.
Remember....when you retire, you aren't going to need a 5-bedroom house. Your kids will be off living their own lives. My parents are retired, 75 years old, and they own a massive 5-bedroom house. They use about 15% of it. They don't even go upstairs. It's ridiculous.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.052632 | 23,698 | 2.9 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | c0207f7adb4a4281a6cff77f9caab828 | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,873,219 | 1,676,909,696 | 40 | 176 | I'm 45. I don't ever plan to buy a house again. I've owned several. Even when I was fortunate enough to be selling in a hot market, I never came out ahead after fees, commissions, etc., and it was a beating to sell each one.
I have the ability to make a 20% down payment on a house, but I would rather keep that 20% in the market as opposed to putting it into a house and immediately making it an illiquid asset that will also immediately lose 6% to a realtor when I need to sell it.
Remember....when you retire, you aren't going to need a 5-bedroom house. Your kids will be off living their own lives. My parents are retired, 75 years old, and they own a massive 5-bedroom house. They use about 15% of it. They don't even go upstairs. It's ridiculous.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 36,477 | 4.4 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | c0207f7adb4a4281a6cff77f9caab828 | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,873,219 | 1,677,257,308 | 40 | 165 | I'm 45. I don't ever plan to buy a house again. I've owned several. Even when I was fortunate enough to be selling in a hot market, I never came out ahead after fees, commissions, etc., and it was a beating to sell each one.
I have the ability to make a 20% down payment on a house, but I would rather keep that 20% in the market as opposed to putting it into a house and immediately making it an illiquid asset that will also immediately lose 6% to a realtor when I need to sell it.
Remember....when you retire, you aren't going to need a 5-bedroom house. Your kids will be off living their own lives. My parents are retired, 75 years old, and they own a massive 5-bedroom house. They use about 15% of it. They don't even go upstairs. It's ridiculous.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.06993 | 384,089 | 4.125 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | c0207f7adb4a4281a6cff77f9caab828 | a89d2b412a7840b1b693de0e89a0dbb1 | 1,676,873,219 | 1,677,257,749 | 40 | 81 | I'm 45. I don't ever plan to buy a house again. I've owned several. Even when I was fortunate enough to be selling in a hot market, I never came out ahead after fees, commissions, etc., and it was a beating to sell each one.
I have the ability to make a 20% down payment on a house, but I would rather keep that 20% in the market as opposed to putting it into a house and immediately making it an illiquid asset that will also immediately lose 6% to a realtor when I need to sell it.
Remember....when you retire, you aren't going to need a 5-bedroom house. Your kids will be off living their own lives. My parents are retired, 75 years old, and they own a massive 5-bedroom house. They use about 15% of it. They don't even go upstairs. It's ridiculous.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.083333 | 384,530 | 2.025 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | bab56cb4bdbb40a3aa51431849d7512f | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,873,461 | 1,676,909,696 | 116 | 176 | Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.042553 | 36,235 | 1.517241 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | bab56cb4bdbb40a3aa51431849d7512f | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,873,461 | 1,677,257,308 | 116 | 165 | Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.057377 | 383,847 | 1.422414 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 4d61c6f681eb4392bcf071248259a49a | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,883,333 | 1,676,909,696 | 116 | 176 | Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.042553 | 26,363 | 1.517241 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 4d61c6f681eb4392bcf071248259a49a | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,883,333 | 1,677,257,308 | 116 | 165 | Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.057377 | 373,975 | 1.422414 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 762369e9c626412e9838d3b5e59a9e0e | e710d57e178f4b80972ecaf5b413940e | 1,676,885,266 | 1,676,896,917 | 81 | 116 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.052632 | 11,651 | 1.432099 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 762369e9c626412e9838d3b5e59a9e0e | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,885,266 | 1,676,909,696 | 81 | 176 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 24,430 | 2.17284 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 762369e9c626412e9838d3b5e59a9e0e | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,885,266 | 1,677,257,308 | 81 | 165 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.06993 | 372,042 | 2.037037 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 81a29ce2e8e340dca88294dd74e549d0 | e710d57e178f4b80972ecaf5b413940e | 1,676,894,714 | 1,676,896,917 | 81 | 116 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| 0 | 0.052632 | 2,203 | 1.432099 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 81a29ce2e8e340dca88294dd74e549d0 | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,894,714 | 1,676,909,696 | 81 | 176 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.057971 | 14,982 | 2.17284 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | 81a29ce2e8e340dca88294dd74e549d0 | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,894,714 | 1,677,257,308 | 81 | 165 | A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.06993 | 362,594 | 2.037037 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | e710d57e178f4b80972ecaf5b413940e | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,896,917 | 1,676,909,696 | 116 | 176 | Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.042553 | 12,779 | 1.517241 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | e710d57e178f4b80972ecaf5b413940e | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,896,917 | 1,677,257,308 | 116 | 165 | Only based on my own life experience, I do not want to be moving when I am 50+ years old. The thought of packing up, moving, getting used to a new neighborhood/city, finding new friends, hoping for good neighbors and a fair landlord. Those things are not what I want to do when I'm 50 or 60 or 70 years old.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.057377 | 360,391 | 1.422414 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | d9317711ccf242fd954f3402a9ea5618 | 5df26efb97ef438595aa27584fd48106 | 1,676,904,028 | 1,676,909,696 | 28 | 176 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| Yes, this is totally fine. It does require a considerable amount of discipline. Many people use their mortgage as a means of forced savings. You have to make absolutely sure that you're investing enough to make up for the absence of equity built up in a house.
| 0 | 0.04 | 5,668 | 6.285714 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | d9317711ccf242fd954f3402a9ea5618 | 946235791044435ca3a6203de614a6ac | 1,676,904,028 | 1,677,257,308 | 28 | 165 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| As a renter you will probably overpay some for housing. There are a zillion government programs that subsidize demand for homeownership specifically (first time buyer programs, the mortgage interest deduction, etc.). Few states have meaningful subsidies for renters because homeowners are 60% of the population (and tend to be wealthier, more ensconced in a community, with more political clout).
Over the past 30-40 years housing has also provided abnormally high returns ~~beyond those seen with index investing~~ (especially in some coastal markets) as zoning and other regulations sharply limited supply. This is great for a few people who bought houses in San Francisco in 1975 and are now multimillionaires, but far from certain to be repeated.
In any case, renting isn't the *only* way to overpay for housing. Another way to do it would be paying transaction costs to buy/sell a house every 5 years, or buying in the exurbs of a city right before it allows more housing downtown (so the exurb commute is now optional). It sounds like the former might happen with your current view on moving vs settling down. If you're paying a premium either way and value the flexibility, renting will provide more (at a cost).
| 0 | 0.108434 | 353,280 | 5.892857 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1162ml7 | We have second thoughts about buying a house due to two reasons. One is that we do not feel like settling down at a location in the long term (at least we cannot imagine yet despite being in mid 30s). Second is that house prices are through the roof where we live. We do not want to buy a house over a million dollars (no reasonable house exists where we live below that) and live house poor. Instead we rent a single family house and invest the rest of the money that would have gone into mortgage payments. While this is sustainable now, I am wondering if this is a realistic scenario indefinitely. I have not heard of comfortable retirement stories without home ownership and I wonder if investing the money that would be used for mortgage payments instead in a three fund portfolio would be a realistic strategy on the long term. | Is it ok to never buy a house but keep investing in a three fund portfolio? | d9317711ccf242fd954f3402a9ea5618 | a89d2b412a7840b1b693de0e89a0dbb1 | 1,676,904,028 | 1,677,257,749 | 28 | 81 | This is what we do (50+ DINKSWD) and are very happy and our finances have improved when we made the switch from home owners to renters.
You will hear passionate arguments from both the homeowner and renter side. But ultimately you need to do what's best for your situation. For us, I move too much for work and we spend too much improving the house and on transaction costs to ever realize the gain. Now all the Home Depot project money gets invested. Most times the company covers the move so its not a loss for us.
Someday we plan on settling down and finding a retirement home, but its just not in the cards right now. So instead we rent and invest the money.
As far as my personal opinion on rent vs buy, the one thing you can't control about homeownership is your neighbors and that was a significant factor in our deciding to move in the past. We never want to relive those experiences and renting gives us the freedom of choice. Our investment accounts never have drive by shootings, cook food in their garages or have dogs they don't pick up after. Other people have better experiences with owning a home so YMMV.
| A lot of people feel that home appreciation equals increased net wealth. They like to add their $500k house to their asset column, yet don't seem to recognize they only realize that value if they sell the home. And what do they do next?
Every other home has appreciated as well, so unless you're massively downsizing or moving someplace with lower prices you aren't going to see any net gain.
Disclaimer: I owned a home and sold it in seven years for almost 2x. I then moved to Japan where homes are rapidly depreciating assets. Renting suits me better now for many reasons. Everyone will have a different situation and preference.
| 0 | 0.08 | 353,721 | 2.892857 | 1 |
bogleheads | yujw2x | Hello everyone. I (F24) started putting in money into a taxable brokerage after graduating from college 2 years ago into mostly VOO with some international diversification. Im now considering moving what’s in my taxable (~15k) to a roth ira since I initially opened up the account to get a kick start on saving for retirement. I was less informed back then & wish I had just opened a roth IRA instead. I know that I may have to pay capital gains tax in doing so but I also lost a lot as the economy went down.
Does anyone have personal experience doing this? Any advice in navigating? Thank you in advance! | Advice: Moving taxable to roth ira (vanguard) | 4cead22a3eb641e38e3bfa9c1854776c | 1082589cf8b2432fa387b1ae98d0ee4d | 1,668,386,455 | 1,668,392,229 | 2 | 3 | As long as you have $6k earned income in yr2022, then yes contribute the max $6k.
| I always do my conversions when the market is down, like now, so this is the perfect season for it. Maybe peek at the tax brackets to see if you can top off a bracket.
I know, this is sorta market timing and not pure Bogle. Sorry... I am more of of a soft efficient markets guy.
| 0 | 0.0625 | 5,774 | 1.5 | 1 |
bogleheads | yujw2x | Hello everyone. I (F24) started putting in money into a taxable brokerage after graduating from college 2 years ago into mostly VOO with some international diversification. Im now considering moving what’s in my taxable (~15k) to a roth ira since I initially opened up the account to get a kick start on saving for retirement. I was less informed back then & wish I had just opened a roth IRA instead. I know that I may have to pay capital gains tax in doing so but I also lost a lot as the economy went down.
Does anyone have personal experience doing this? Any advice in navigating? Thank you in advance! | Advice: Moving taxable to roth ira (vanguard) | 4cead22a3eb641e38e3bfa9c1854776c | 5a06cc3a949d45fb87eeedd0c3dff5d0 | 1,668,386,455 | 1,668,395,305 | 2 | 4 | As long as you have $6k earned income in yr2022, then yes contribute the max $6k.
| You can't "convert" contributions from a taxable account to an IRA account. You can only sell your taxable holdings and contribute to your Roth from the proceeds as long as you have earnings for the year equal to the contribution.
Conversions can only occur between traditional and Roth IRA accounts.
The simplest path is to leave everything where it is and contribute to your Roth from current year earnings.
| 0 | 0.090909 | 8,850 | 2 | 1 |
bogleheads | yujw2x | Hello everyone. I (F24) started putting in money into a taxable brokerage after graduating from college 2 years ago into mostly VOO with some international diversification. Im now considering moving what’s in my taxable (~15k) to a roth ira since I initially opened up the account to get a kick start on saving for retirement. I was less informed back then & wish I had just opened a roth IRA instead. I know that I may have to pay capital gains tax in doing so but I also lost a lot as the economy went down.
Does anyone have personal experience doing this? Any advice in navigating? Thank you in advance! | Advice: Moving taxable to roth ira (vanguard) | 1082589cf8b2432fa387b1ae98d0ee4d | 5a06cc3a949d45fb87eeedd0c3dff5d0 | 1,668,392,229 | 1,668,395,305 | 3 | 4 | I always do my conversions when the market is down, like now, so this is the perfect season for it. Maybe peek at the tax brackets to see if you can top off a bracket.
I know, this is sorta market timing and not pure Bogle. Sorry... I am more of of a soft efficient markets guy.
| You can't "convert" contributions from a taxable account to an IRA account. You can only sell your taxable holdings and contribute to your Roth from the proceeds as long as you have earnings for the year equal to the contribution.
Conversions can only occur between traditional and Roth IRA accounts.
The simplest path is to leave everything where it is and contribute to your Roth from current year earnings.
| 0 | 0.043478 | 3,076 | 1.333333 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1029wov | The fund choices in my 401k are good actually, with lower expenses than Vanguard even.
* S&P500 index at 0.01% Expense Ratio
* International index at 0.05% Expense Ratio
My other assets are with Vanguard. (VTI and VXUS, at expense ratios of 0.03% and 0.07%)
Because the 401k is a big amount ($250k), I'm worried about being out of market for a few days/weeks while the rollover happens. Even a 3% move I could lose/gain $7,500. | Retired early (FIRE) - should I rollover my 401k to an IRA? | 13ed30ed0f4c464a987227be7adb9551 | 3dee70fac59c49b3bc285a1e5786aca5 | 1,672,764,246 | 1,672,775,160 | 18 | 45 | How old are you? Only really matters if you’re between 55 and 60.
| Does your 401k provider have any administration fees? These are tacked on separate of the fund expense fees. I’d look over your plan details or your transaction history (an expense fee will be listed there as a deduction).
| 0 | 0.083333 | 10,914 | 2.5 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1029wov | The fund choices in my 401k are good actually, with lower expenses than Vanguard even.
* S&P500 index at 0.01% Expense Ratio
* International index at 0.05% Expense Ratio
My other assets are with Vanguard. (VTI and VXUS, at expense ratios of 0.03% and 0.07%)
Because the 401k is a big amount ($250k), I'm worried about being out of market for a few days/weeks while the rollover happens. Even a 3% move I could lose/gain $7,500. | Retired early (FIRE) - should I rollover my 401k to an IRA? | 7b8befd4f91e4538a1613c911160a3e3 | 3dee70fac59c49b3bc285a1e5786aca5 | 1,672,764,944 | 1,672,775,160 | 18 | 45 | How old are you? Only really matters if you’re between 55 and 60.
| Does your 401k provider have any administration fees? These are tacked on separate of the fund expense fees. I’d look over your plan details or your transaction history (an expense fee will be listed there as a deduction).
| 0 | 0.083333 | 10,216 | 2.5 | 1 |
bogleheads | 1029wov | The fund choices in my 401k are good actually, with lower expenses than Vanguard even.
* S&P500 index at 0.01% Expense Ratio
* International index at 0.05% Expense Ratio
My other assets are with Vanguard. (VTI and VXUS, at expense ratios of 0.03% and 0.07%)
Because the 401k is a big amount ($250k), I'm worried about being out of market for a few days/weeks while the rollover happens. Even a 3% move I could lose/gain $7,500. | Retired early (FIRE) - should I rollover my 401k to an IRA? | 8ac3916143d7485b8aa6eab6a5495ec9 | 3dee70fac59c49b3bc285a1e5786aca5 | 1,672,766,348 | 1,672,775,160 | 18 | 45 | How old are you? Only really matters if you’re between 55 and 60.
| Does your 401k provider have any administration fees? These are tacked on separate of the fund expense fees. I’d look over your plan details or your transaction history (an expense fee will be listed there as a deduction).
| 0 | 0.083333 | 8,812 | 2.5 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 035884dff36b4b59a971308a2674fccb | 48f1aaea5d574a2eb560fb80bbcc522e | 1,664,382,310 | 1,664,409,837 | 17 | 123 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Easy to say when you’re able to stomach the losses. Which, fortunately, I am. Frankly the lower this goes, the better it is for me. But not everyone is in that situation.
| 0 | 0.05 | 27,527 | 7.235294 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 035884dff36b4b59a971308a2674fccb | 5e444a99850e40729343af95b86746cb | 1,664,382,310 | 1,664,415,508 | 17 | 51 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.010204 | 33,198 | 3 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 035884dff36b4b59a971308a2674fccb | 7ed9a63057754fb6a14a614e1d69ce57 | 1,664,382,310 | 1,664,419,014 | 17 | 61 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Tin foil hat time. During COVID, the stock market grew at an insane pace while not making sense as to why. This "recession" is a correction to the overinflated prices that happened during COVID
| 0 | 0.035714 | 36,704 | 3.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 035884dff36b4b59a971308a2674fccb | d02f4b2f33c140b19c14586d0c271fc3 | 1,664,382,310 | 1,664,419,200 | 17 | 51 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.010204 | 36,890 | 3 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 035884dff36b4b59a971308a2674fccb | 7423689401e64c1faf8495d68522fb0d | 1,664,382,310 | 1,664,420,960 | 17 | 61 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Tin foil hat time. During COVID, the stock market grew at an insane pace while not making sense as to why. This "recession" is a correction to the overinflated prices that happened during COVID
| 0 | 0.035714 | 38,650 | 3.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 035884dff36b4b59a971308a2674fccb | 1984f85974ef45fbb76bcfbd480375d7 | 1,664,382,310 | 1,664,421,263 | 17 | 51 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.010204 | 38,953 | 3 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 035884dff36b4b59a971308a2674fccb | 64b7c95d9f86450982a32a1c6c284513 | 1,664,382,310 | 1,664,421,946 | 17 | 61 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Tin foil hat time. During COVID, the stock market grew at an insane pace while not making sense as to why. This "recession" is a correction to the overinflated prices that happened during COVID
| 0 | 0.035714 | 39,636 | 3.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 035884dff36b4b59a971308a2674fccb | 236bfae6b9594ec591f143b72228aa25 | 1,664,382,310 | 1,664,460,440 | 17 | 123 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Easy to say when you’re able to stomach the losses. Which, fortunately, I am. Frankly the lower this goes, the better it is for me. But not everyone is in that situation.
| 0 | 0.05 | 78,130 | 7.235294 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 3d7120a3a8d44717907398002863286d | 5e444a99850e40729343af95b86746cb | 1,664,386,381 | 1,664,415,508 | 17 | 51 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.010204 | 29,127 | 3 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 3d7120a3a8d44717907398002863286d | 7ed9a63057754fb6a14a614e1d69ce57 | 1,664,386,381 | 1,664,419,014 | 17 | 61 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Tin foil hat time. During COVID, the stock market grew at an insane pace while not making sense as to why. This "recession" is a correction to the overinflated prices that happened during COVID
| 0 | 0.035714 | 32,633 | 3.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 3d7120a3a8d44717907398002863286d | d02f4b2f33c140b19c14586d0c271fc3 | 1,664,386,381 | 1,664,419,200 | 17 | 51 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.010204 | 32,819 | 3 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 3d7120a3a8d44717907398002863286d | 7423689401e64c1faf8495d68522fb0d | 1,664,386,381 | 1,664,420,960 | 17 | 61 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Tin foil hat time. During COVID, the stock market grew at an insane pace while not making sense as to why. This "recession" is a correction to the overinflated prices that happened during COVID
| 0 | 0.035714 | 34,579 | 3.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 3d7120a3a8d44717907398002863286d | 1984f85974ef45fbb76bcfbd480375d7 | 1,664,386,381 | 1,664,421,263 | 17 | 51 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.010204 | 34,882 | 3 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 3d7120a3a8d44717907398002863286d | 64b7c95d9f86450982a32a1c6c284513 | 1,664,386,381 | 1,664,421,946 | 17 | 61 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Tin foil hat time. During COVID, the stock market grew at an insane pace while not making sense as to why. This "recession" is a correction to the overinflated prices that happened during COVID
| 0 | 0.035714 | 35,565 | 3.588235 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | 3d7120a3a8d44717907398002863286d | 236bfae6b9594ec591f143b72228aa25 | 1,664,386,381 | 1,664,460,440 | 17 | 123 | I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| Easy to say when you’re able to stomach the losses. Which, fortunately, I am. Frankly the lower this goes, the better it is for me. But not everyone is in that situation.
| 0 | 0.05 | 74,059 | 7.235294 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | 243bc65054244b71b25feff5e3486bb5 | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,389,131 | 9 | 17 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| 0 | 0.020833 | 140 | 1.888889 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | 087d1df5e93348ad81f02810947c9365 | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,408,399 | 9 | 10 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| Checks TSLA: P/E = 109
Seems fair.
/s
| 0 | 0.02 | 19,408 | 1.111111 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | 48f1aaea5d574a2eb560fb80bbcc522e | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,409,837 | 9 | 123 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| Easy to say when you’re able to stomach the losses. Which, fortunately, I am. Frankly the lower this goes, the better it is for me. But not everyone is in that situation.
| 0 | 0.04 | 20,846 | 13.666667 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | 0b2011f116f345f787051cc9b0c31767 | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,411,635 | 9 | 17 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| I'm surprised to see this sub still use P/E to determine whether to invest or not.
| 0 | 0.020833 | 22,644 | 1.888889 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | 5e444a99850e40729343af95b86746cb | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,415,508 | 9 | 51 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.031746 | 26,517 | 5.666667 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | 7ed9a63057754fb6a14a614e1d69ce57 | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,419,014 | 9 | 61 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| Tin foil hat time. During COVID, the stock market grew at an insane pace while not making sense as to why. This "recession" is a correction to the overinflated prices that happened during COVID
| 0 | 0.071429 | 30,023 | 6.777778 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | d02f4b2f33c140b19c14586d0c271fc3 | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,419,200 | 9 | 51 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.031746 | 30,209 | 5.666667 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | 7423689401e64c1faf8495d68522fb0d | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,420,960 | 9 | 61 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| Tin foil hat time. During COVID, the stock market grew at an insane pace while not making sense as to why. This "recession" is a correction to the overinflated prices that happened during COVID
| 0 | 0.071429 | 31,969 | 6.777778 | 1 |
bogleheads | xqc539 | I’m not saying stocks were priced “wrong” before, the prices people were paying were at least fair.
But certainly they were high. Now prices are much more in line with where they ought to be with an overall P/E of about 18.
They may go much lower, into oversold territory. That will still represent “fair” pricing. Good buying opportunity if it happens.
But it seems like headlines should be proclaiming stocks are better priced now, yet it’s all doomscrolling about how we’re in a bear market.
Yeah, that’s what happens when stock prices rise too much and too quickly.
CNBC should be saying, “finally, stocks aren’t stupid expensive.” | Finally stocks are priced about where they should be. I don’t see why people freaking out | e80df6117ce6437ea392b42dff73a9ce | 1984f85974ef45fbb76bcfbd480375d7 | 1,664,388,991 | 1,664,421,263 | 9 | 51 | There are reasons to be concerned. I am one of those people who believe that the current crisis stems from non-economic and non-fiscal causes. We are faced with two major black-swan events - Covid and Ukraine - that disrupt supply chains, consumption, globalization and many other factors. Climate change is another major phenomenon that can have a severe impact on valuation and stock markets. Unlike Covid and Ukraine, climate change fall-outs are likely to last many decades.
| This post says nothing. Markets have declined and now you've proclaimed they were too expensive previously. Good hindsight. From here, the market may go up or it may go down. The same was true before the drop.
Using PE as an investment metric isn't terribly useful. If you think anything over PE 20 is "overpriced", you would have been sitting out the market since 2014 or so.
You also proclaimed, "if the market goes way down, that'll be a good buying opportunity." Again, it's a another generality. It doesn't mean anything. When markets go down, it's often for a *reason*, which means it's pretty useless to say ahead of time, "whenever the market goes down is a great time to buy."
We all knew valuations were high last year from a PE standpoint. That piece of information does not tell you whether valuations would *remain* high or not, and thus doesn't give a great indicator of *when* to buy or sell. As inflation has persisted and interest rates have been raised, it's a natural result for PE ratios to drop because bond returns become more attractive. Again, the narrative was that inflation was transitory and would go away. As that story changed, markets reacted accordingly.
Bond returns were so low last year that stocks were attractive even at higher PE ratios.
You say stocks are "fairly" priced now, but how could you know? If interest rates go to 10%, the current PE ratios could be horrible returns by comparison. If we enter stagflation, the current valuations could be way too high. I'm not *predicting* this, but nobody knows what will happen, and you certainly haven't made any valid case to justify when to buy or sell.
| 0 | 0.031746 | 32,272 | 5.666667 | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.