When is it better to rent and when is better buy in a certain property market?
Besides the long-term concern about which is cheaper, which has already been addressed by other answers, consider your risk exposure. Owning property has financial risks associated with it, just like owning stocks or bonds. The risk-related downsides of owning a home as an asset include: The risk-related upsides of owning a home as an asset include: Taking on some risk can save you (or earn you) money in the long run (that's why people buy risky stocks, after all) but consider how well you're equipped to handle that risk before you rush out to buy on a naive analysis of what's cheaper. "For US punters, the Centre for Economic and Policy Research has a Housing Cost Calculator you can play with.  The BBC provides this one for the UK. For everyone else, there are a few rules of thumb (use with discretion and only as a ball-park guide): Your example of a Gross Rental Yield of 5% would have to be weighed up against local investment returns. Read Wikipedia's comprehensive ""Real-estate bubble"" article. Update: spotted that Fennec included this link at the NY Times which contains a Buy or Rent Calculator." The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting.  Additionally, Alex B helped me with two additional sources of information for this: Real Estate is local, all the articles here refer to the US housing market. Bankrate says purchase price / annual rate in the US has a long term average of 16.0. Fool says Purchase Price/Monthly Rent: 150 is good buy, 200 starts to get expensive This answer is copy pasted from a similar question (not the same so I did not vote to merge) linked here.. The first question is low long will you wish to stray there? It costs of lot in legal changes other   changes plus taxes to buy and sell, so   if you are not going to wish to live   somewhere for at least 5 years, then I   would say that renting was better. Do you wish to be able to make changes? When you rent, you can’t change   anything without getting permission   that can be a pain. Can you cope with unexpected building bills? If you own a home, you have to get it   fixed when it breaks, but you don’t   know when it will break or how much it   will cost to get fixed. Would you rather do a bit of DIY instead of phone up a agent many times to get a small problem fixed? When you rent, it can often take many   phone calls to get the agent /   landlord to sort out a problem, if own   your home, out can do yourself. Then there are the questions of money that other people have covered. "No magic answers here. Housing is a market, and the conditions in each local market vary. I think impact on cash flow is the best way to evaluate housing prices. In general, I consider a ""cheap"" home to cost 20% or less of your income, ""affordable"" between 20-30% and ""not affordable"" over 30%. When you start comparing rent vs. buy, there are other factors that you need to think about: Renting is an easy transaction. You're comparing prices in  a market that is usually pretty stable, and your risk and liability is low. The ""cost"" of the low risk is that you have virtually no prospects of recouping any value out of the cash that you are laying out for your home. Buying is more complex. You're buying a house, building equity and probably making money due to appreciation. You need to be vigilant about expenses and circumstances that affect the value of your home as an investment. If you live in a high-tax state like New York, an extra $1,200 in property taxes saps over $16,000 of buying (borrowing) power from a future purchaser of your home. If your HOA or condo association is run by a pack of idiots, you're going to end up paying through the nose for their mistakes. Another consideration is your tastes. If you tend to live above your means, you're not going to be able to afford necessary maintenance on the house that you paid too much for."
"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses   value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing   the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis.  It all depends on the numbers you plug in.  Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k.  Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k.  You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc.  Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k.  It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo.  In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it.  It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years.  That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger   property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is:  if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value.   However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would   gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have   increased in price. But it may not scale.  When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses.  That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low.   Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either   market? I don't think so.  I think, in general, buying ""more house"" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable.  Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles.   The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes.  You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was.   In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point:  let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!" The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it. Be very careful about buying property because it has been going up quickly in recent years.  There are some fundamental factors that limit the amount real-estate can appreciate over time.  In a nutshell, the general real-estate market growth is supported by the entry-level property market.  That is, when values are appreciating, people can sell and use the capital gains to buy more valuable property.  This drives up the prices in higher value properties whose owners can use that to purchase more expensive properties and so on and so forth. At some point in a rising market, the entry-level properties start to become hard for entry-level buyers to afford.  The machine of rising prices throughout the market starts grinding to a halt.  This price-level can be calculated by looking at average incomes in an area.  At some percentage of income, people cannot buy into the market without crazy loans and if those become popular, watch out because things can get really ugly.  If you want an example, just look back to the US in 2007-2009 and the nearly apocalyptic financial crisis that ensued. As with most investing, you want to buy low and sell high.  Buying into a hot market is generally not very profitable.  Buying when the market is abnormally low tends to be a more effective strategy. "This is a comment, not an answer. -- but it needs saying and doesn't fit in the comment boxes. Owning is not always cheaper than renting.  Houses don't always appreciate, and in the early years of a loan you're mostly paying interest. -- so that too is ""lost money "". The time to buy a house is when you are reasonably sure you aren't going to move in the next five years or so, you need something a rental can't give you, you have at least 20% to put down so you avoid the pmi rip-off, you've run a full budget including upkeep and insurance costs and are sure you can carry the house worst-case ... including if you're out of work for an extended time...  (I've seen people lose a job and discover that they can't keep the house,  and can't unload it quickly.  Good route toward bankruptcy. Houses are not a liquid asset, and being ""house-rich, cash-poor"" is potentially dangerous. ) If you really hate apartments,  remember that sometimes you can rent houses too, often at lower cost per square foot. Basically, don't be stampeded into buying. I rented for two decades before I bought. And by/while doing so I was able to put aside enough investments that I could have bought a half-million-dollar house for cash, and was able to change cities several times without the stress of having to sell and re-buy. I missed out on the insane housing bubble,  but I also avoided being hit when that crashed." More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money. In most cases my preference would be to buy. However, if you intend to sell after just one year I would maybe lean towards renting. You haven't included buying and selling cost into your equation nor any property taxes, and as John Bensin suggests, maintenance costs. If you were looking to hold the property for at least 5 years, 10 years or more, then if the numbers stood up, I would defiantly go with the buy option. You can rent it out after you move out and if the rent is higher than your total expenses in holding the property, you could rely on some extra passive income. "Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is ""too good to not get into"" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund." "I'd probably say ""buy"" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me." "I think the claim is that you shouldn't buy a house expecting it to increase in value as you would a stock portfolio. OTOH if you are looking at it from the stand point of ""I need housing, mortgage payments and rent are comparable and I build equity if I buy a house rather then rent"" that's potentiality a very different situation (that I'm not qualified to judge)." Buying is not always better than renting, even if you aren't mobile! That depends on local market conditions.  If you're investing the money reasonably you may do as well as or better than the house-buyer, and your funds will be tremendously more liquid. Economically, you would say that purchased and rented real estate are not perfect substitutes--they are largely separate markets.  Only a few people are able to easily switch from one to the other and that choice is sticky--for example, once you buy a house, prices would have to rise a lot for it to be worth it to sell it and move into an apartment. In both markets there is a supply and demand curve, but the slope of the demand curve for houses to purchase is much steeper than the demand curve for rentals. The market for new housing fluctuates rapidly because it requires a large change in housing prices to change the number of people looking to buy a house.  Most decisions to buy a house are not driven by the state of the housing market.  This describes a supply/demand graph with a very steep demand curve.  Additionally, because of the leverage provided by mortgages, the demand for houses depends critically on relatively small changes in the interest rate and availability of loans.  Thus the steep demand curve shifts all over the place as borrowing conditions change. On the other hand, apartment prices are more stable because people easily move from one apartment to another and people living in their parent's basements easily move into apartments if prices change.  A small change in the price or quantity of rentals brings about reasonable response in quantity demanded.  This is the situation where the demand curve is shallow.  In addition, rentals are not tied to interest rates tightly, nor are they as strongly tied to economic conditions (in a recession, people avoid buying but renters continue to rent). There are many different reasons to buy property and it's important to make a distinction between commercial and residential property. Historically owning property has been part of the American dream, for multiple reasons.  But to answer your questions, value is not based on the age of the building (however it can be in a historic district). In addition the price of something and it's value may or may not be directly related for each individual buyer/owner (because that becomes subjective). Some buildings can lose there value as time passes, but the depends on multiple factors (area, condition of the building, overall economy, etc.) so it's not that easy to give a specific answer to a general question.  Before you buy property amongst many things it's important to determine why you want to buy this property (what will be it's principal use for you). That will help you determine if you should buy an old or new property, but that pales in comparison to if the property will maintain and gain in value. Also if your looking for an investment look into REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). These can be great. Why? Because you don't actually have to carry the mortgage. Which makes that ideal for people who want to own property but not have to deal with the everyday ins-and-outs of the responsibility of ownership....like rising cost. It's important to note that the cost of purchase and cost of ownership are two different things but invariably linked when buying anything in the material strata of our world. You can find publicly traded REITs on the major stock exchanges. Hope that helps. The banks see small apartments as a higher risk because usually very small apartments are harder to sell, especially during a falling market when there is an oversupply of these apartments. The price of small apartments will also fall a lot quicker in a falling market. Regarding yield vs capital growth - the emphasis here is manly on high yielding properties in small country towns with small populations. How many properties can you buy with cash? Properties with good growth will enable you to build equity quicker and enable you to build a larger portfolio. In my opinion you need a combination of good yield and reasonable growth, because without yield you cannot replace your earned income with passive income, but without growth you can't expand your portfolio. So a combination of good yield with reasonable growth will give the best outcome. Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent:  If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people:  In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them. American options (like those on ADBE) can be exercised by the holder anytime before expiration. They will be exercised automatically at expiration if they are in the money. However, if there is still time before expiration (as in this case), and they are not extremely in the money, there is probably extrinsic value to the option, and you should sell it, not exercise it. European options are only automatically exercised at expiration, and only if they are in the money. These are usually cash settled on products like SPX or VIX. They can not be exercised before expiration, but can be sold anytime.