Considering this chart, showing a long term trend of <1%p.a.

>>992654

>real

Considering that inflation has averaged 2.6% over the same period, that presumably means a nominal return of 3.6%. Not so bad, especially when you consider that only a fraction of the initial investment is your money. Let's say, for the sake of simplicity, that the property cost $100000, and that the mortgage plus expenses works out to the same figure as renting. With the mortgage you're making $3600 a year compounding, and you finish at the end of it with the $100000 and little or no housing expenses on top of that. Over a 30 year term, for example, that means that your initial investment of $30000 or so has grown to nearly $300000. If you rent instead and invest your money then that $30000 needs an annual yield of more like 7.5%. Now, it depends when you get in, but you might beat that in an index fund. There are a lot of assumptions in that example, and it's all based on past performance, but it's not exactly cut and dried that one will outperform the other.

>>992679
Pretty good breakdown.

Considering only needing to beat 7.5% that isn't too difficult I'd say, and you don't have the attendant risks of being tied to the one spot for a large number of years, nor 5+% fee when you want to cash out. Seems like renting is quite plausibly better.

>>992654

Your primary home should not be looked at as an investment.

>>992986
>Your primary home should not be looked at as an investment.
Yes and no. It is an investment, but you shouldn't do an apples-to-apples comparison with the stock market to decide if it makes sense. Your primary residence has utility beyond its potential for appreciation because you can live in it. Mutual funds are terrific investments, but they don't keep the rain out.

>>992995
This guy understands. No, buying a house won't beat the stock market. But it's complety worth it for your stability and general happiness.

>>992654
Buying is better than renting unless you're in an overpriced territory. And I don't mean city, I mean territory. The parts of the world where any acceptable home within a 40 mile radius cost more than 5x your salary.

Housing may be worth it long term, but it's not worth a damn if it costs every dime you make.

Other things to consider are things like rates or community charge that has to be paid where I am. That never ends, even after the mortgage is paid. Also, things like maintenance. There's always something breaking that needs to be fixed. Not only the house but everything on the land as well. You are responsible for all infrastructure on the land. Pipe leaks (sewage and such), you have to get it repaired. Trees over-hang outside into public areas, you have to get them sorted. You really have to factor everything in.

Another thing for the more flighty among us is that you're tied into large debt for many years which for the more flighty among us, keeps you tied down. Yes, you can just sell it but that can still sometimes turn into more than a simple process sometimes.

But also as some of the others have said, you can't just think of it as a simple investment. It actually shelters you from the elements. A vital part of life. Additional homes and real estate for business absolutely can be though of in that way though and a lot of the time do very well and add great diversity to your portfolio. Big money though. and can complicated if you're trying to do it all yourself. Most people who get into it for that get others to take care of the minutiae.

File: US-San-Francisco-home-prices-Paragon-2012-2015-04.png (82KB, 538x363px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 538x363px

>>992654
>>993198
Well, it all depends on where, what, and when you buy.

>>992654
Depends on if you ever want to be a landowner or not.

Just buy a duplex and get renting plebs to pay off your mortgage.

I just bought a foreclosure for 111,000. I ripped off the roof and added a second story doubling the rooms and square footage. Cost me 30,000 and house is now worth 210,000. It's fucking easy. Just find the right deal.