To sell or to rent the house?
"So either scenario has about $10K upfront costs (either realtor/selling expenses or fixing up for rental). Furthermore, I'm sure that the buyers would want you to fix all these things anyway, or reduce the price accordingly, but let's ignore this. Let's also ignore the remaining mortgage, since it looks like you can comfortably pay it off. Assuming 10% property management and 10% average vacancy (check your market), and rental price at $1000 - you end up with these numbers: I took very conservative estimates both on the rent (lower than you expect) and the maintenance expense (although on average over the years ,since you need to have some reserves, this is probably quite reasonable). You end up with 2.7% ROI, which is not a lot for a rental. The rule of thumb your wife mentioned (1% of cash equity) is indeed usually for ROI of leveraged rental purchase. However, if rental prices in your area are rising, as it sounds like they are, you may end up there quite soon anyway. The downside is that the money is locked in. If you're confident in your ability to rent and are not loosing the tax benefit of selling since it sounds like you've not appreciated, you may take out some cash through a cash-out refi. To keep cash-flow near-0, you need to cash out so that the payments would be at or less than the $3200/year (i.e.: $266/month). That would make about $50K at 30/yr fixed 5% loan. What's best is up to you to decide, of course. Check whether ""you can always sell"" holds for you. I.e.: how stable is the market, what happens if one or two large employers disappear, etc."
Advantages of buying: With every mortgage payment you build equity, while with rent, once you sign the check the money is gone. Eventually you will own the house and can live there for free. You can redecorate or remodel to your own liking, rather than being stuck with what the landlord decides is attractive, cost-effective, etc. Here in the U.S. there are tax breaks for homeowners. I'm not sure if that's true in U.K. Advantages of renting: If you decide to move, you may be stuck paying out a lease, but the financial penalty is small. With a house, you may find it difficult to sell. You may be stuck accepting a big loss or having to pay a mortgage on the empty house while you are also paying for your new place. When there are maintenance issues, you call the landlord and it's up to him to fix it. You don't have to come up with the money to pay for repairs. You usually have less maintenance work to do: with a house you have to mow the lawn, clear snow from the driveway, etc. With a rental, usually the landlord does that for you. (Not always, depends on type of rental, but.) You can often buy a house for less than it would cost to rent an equivalent property, but this can be misleading. When you buy, you have to pay property taxes and pay for maintenance; when you rent, these things are included in the rent. How expensive a house you can afford to buy is not a question that can be answered objectively. Banks have formulas that limit how much they will loan you, but in my experience that's always been a rather high upper bound, much more than I would actually be comfortable borrowing. The biggest issue really is, How important is it to you to have a nice house? If your life-long dream is to have a big, luxurious, expensive house, then maybe it's worth it to you to pour every spare penny you have into the mortgage. Other people might prefer to spend less on their house so that they have spare cash for a nice car, concert tickets, video games, cocaine, whatever. Bear in mind that if you get a mortgage that you can just barely afford, what do you do if something goes wrong and you can't afford it any more? What if you lose your job and have to take a lower-paying job? What if some disaster strikes and you have some other huge expense? Etc. On the flip side, the burden of a mortgage usually goes down over time. Most people find that their incomes go up over time, between inflation and growing experience. But the amount of a mortgage is fixed, or if it varies it varies with interest rates, probably bouncing up and down rather than going steadily up like inflation. So it's likely -- not at all certain, but likely -- that if you can just barely afford the payment now, that in 5 or 10 years it won't be as big a burden. Consider contracting with a property management company to lease and maintain the house until it can be sold. Rent on the property should cover the mortgage, property taxes, etc. The property management company can handle maintenance and the tenant would be responsible for utilities. While it may not be your preferred outcome, and doesn't eliminate the income, in the event you find yourself in the path described here you have a way to defer gains to the future. but I would then want to buy another house as a rental If you sell this house and buy another investment property (within strict time windows: 45 days to written contract and closed in 180 days),  you can transfer your basis and defer your gains via what is called a 1031 like-kind exchange "You can make a contingent offer: ""I will buy this house if I sell my own.""  In a highly competitive environment, contingent offers tend to be ignored. (Another commentator described such a contingency clause as synonymous with ""Please Reject Me"".) You can get a bridge loan: you borrow money for a short term, at punishingly high interest.  If your house doesn't sell, you're fscked. You pay for two mortgages (or even buy the other house for cash).  If you can afford this, congratulations on, you know, being super-rich. Or you can do what I am doing: selling one house and then living at my mom's until I buy another one.  (You will have to stay at your own mom's house; my mom's house will be full, of course.) Edit: A commentator with the disturbingly Kafkaesque name of ""R."" made the not-unreasonable suggestion that you buy both and rent out one or the other.  Consider this possibility, but remember: On the other hand, if the stars align, you might not want to extricate yourself.  If the tenant is paying the mortgage and a little more, you have an appreciating asset, and one you can borrow against.  With a little work and a little judicious use of leverage, doing this over and over, you can accumulate a string of income-producing rental properties." If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account.  Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable.  One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly.  The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property.  I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero).  Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting.  Run the numbers.  Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer.  It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation.  Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side.  Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting.  Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side).  Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area.   Assuming that the numbers add up to buying:  buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small. "The trade-off seems to be quite simple: ""How much are you going to get if you sell it"" against ""How much are you going to get if you rent it out"". Several people already hinted that the rental revenue may be optimistic, I don't have anything to add to this, but keep in mind that if someone pays 45k for your apartment, the net gains for you will likely be lower as well. Another consideration would be that the value of your apartment can change, if you expect it to rise steadily you may want to think twice before selling. Now, assuming you have calculated your numbers properly, and a near 0% opportunity cost: 45,000 right now 3,200 per year The given numbers imply a return on investment of 14 years, or 7.1%. Personal conclusion: I would be surprised if you can actually get a 3.2k expected net profit for an apartment that rents out at 6k per year, but if you are confident the reward seems to be quite nice." In order to arrive at a decision you need the numbers: I suggest a spreadsheet.  List the monthly and annual costs (see other responses).  Then determine what the market rate for rental.  Once you have the numbers it will be clear from a numbers standpoint.  One has consider the hassle of owning property from a distance, which is not factored into the spreadsheet Also you would need to consider any taxation issues. As he will be paying you rent you will need to include this as income, plus any capital gains tax on the re-sale of the property may need to be paid. Gonna have to think about this one yourself. How much is the old house worth if you sell it? How much can you rent it out for? If you can sell it for a decent amount, you might be able to pay off the current house completely, save yourself nearly 200k in interest, and maybe end up with a bit more cash. If you can rent it for a high amount, it might be worth doing that and you could possibly use that and get more money than what the interest is.   Just gotta weigh up your options, find out what you can get for the house if you rent or sell. Both seem to be reasonable. To decide you need to guess if the value of the house will go up or down between now and when you sell. If you think the value will go up - reach a calculation agreement now. If you think the value will go down - wait until the house is actually sold. So ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chances... I think I understand the two scenarios Unless you are absolutely confident that you understand both scenarios - make sure your lawyer gets involved and explains them to you until you do understand. Sell the house, in the scenario you describe he is using the property as an investment with a $250 per month buy-in. This investment doesn't make a return right now and when you add in the cost of dealing with the tenant (even if he doesn't have those cost now, he will when they move out)he is out of more than $250 a month and he has no direct knowledge that the value will definitely increase. He would be better spent selling the house and putting the funds into an investment, even a risky investment. It will have less maintenance cost associated with the risky investment than the rental property.  Besides sitting on the property for 10-15 years would cost him 30-45k plus the cost of re-renting the house when empty.Not to mention the inevitable increases in taxes over that time which will either increase his deficit or eat up the rent increase he is able to charge. Don't take the loss on the sale, just short sale it and take the money and invest! One last thought... An alternative is to creatively finance a sale (take payments from a buyer until they can buy outright) that will cover the FULL mortgage and get him the price he needs. You can look up owner financing to find out more on how to do this. Hope this helps! so if we rent it out we don't want to just charge what we're paying on our mortgage - we'd definitely be losing money if we did that. I think you're overlooking one thing: your profit/loss is not monthly. Your profit is the property that's left after the mortgage ends. Even if you have to add extra $100 every month because you rent lower than the mortgage + maintenance + taxes, after 30 years you're left with property worth ie.$200k while you've paid for it ie. 30 years * 12 months * $100 = $36k. You can rent it lower than your costs and still make a profit in the long run. Your reasoning is backwards. As others have pointed out, you cannot just decide how much you charge irrespective of the market. Let me paraphrase a little economics 101 to underline why you also should not think like this: You can see a rental property like your house (the same reasoning is usually explained with the example of hotel rooms) as a series of perishable goods. Your house represents the potential sale of the January rent (which perishes once January is over), plus the February rent etc. Your approach was to compute the total costs (all fixed and variable costs of owning that house as well as costs associated to renting specifically) and average them over the time period so that you know how much to ask at least. Assuming that you are only looking to rent it out, not sell it or let a family member live there, you can't think like this. Most of those costs that you averaged are what economists call sunk costs. You have already incurred the mortgage costs and they are not affected by your decision to rent or not to rent. These costs are irrelevant to your decision making process. You only need to think about marginal costs: those additional costs that you have when you rent but not when you don't. Look at the market prices for renting similar properties in that region and compare them with your marginal costs. As long as they are higher than your marginal costs, rent it out. This does not mean that you are sure to make profits, but it means that you are sure to make less losses than in your only alternative of not renting. "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!" Based on my personal experience with that particular offer, I can say that it's not really a scam. I signed up for an Amazon Credit Card to get $70 off a purchase, but then never used the card. In fact, I never even called to activate it! After a few months, I then called to cancel it. I did not see a significant hit to my credit. However if you do shop frequently at Amazon it may be in your best interest to use their card, because it has other discounts associated with it.