Explain: “3% annual cost of renting is less than the 9% annual cost of owning”
The 3% and 9% figures are based on the cost of borrowing money and all the other ownership costs associated with real estate.  From the same article: http://patrick.net/housing/crash1.html Because it's usually still much cheaper to rent than to own the same   size and quality house, in the same school district. In rich   neighborhoods, annual rents are typically only 3% of purchase price   while mortgage rates are 4% with fees, so it costs more to borrow the   money as it does to borrow the house. Renters win and owners lose!   Worse, total owner costs including taxes, maintenance, and insurance   come to about 8% of purchase price, which is more than twice the cost   of renting and wipes out any income tax benefit. Imagine you are renting a house. If the cost of your annual rent is lower than X then renting is obviously the best idea from a monetary calculation. If rent is greater than Y being a landlord makes more sense. In the middle it is debatable, and the non-monetary reasons need to be considered. "The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level ""paying rent"" should be avoided.  I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it.  A quote from the article -  annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too   high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are   reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a ""4.16"" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a ""20"", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision.  Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years). And the ratio of income to mortgage one can afford is tied to the current rate. The $60K couple, at 4%, can afford just over a $260K mortgage, but at 6%, $208K, and 8%, $170K. The struggle isn't with the payment, but the downpayment.   The analysis isn't too different for a purchase to invest. If the rent exceeds 1% of the home price, an investor should be able to turn a profit after expenses."
If there are a lot of houses for sale, can you be sure that in a year or two you can sell yours? How long does the average house in that area stay on the market before it is sold? What percentage of houses never get sold?  If it can't be sold due to the crowded market you will be forced to rent the house. The question for you then is how much rental income can you get? Compare the rental income to your monthly cost of owning, and managing the house.  One benefit to buying a house in a market that is easy to rent a house would be if you are forced to move quickly, then you aren't stuck being 3 months into a 12 month lease.  Keep in mind that markets can change rather dramatically in just a few years. Housing costs were flat for much of the 90's, then rocketed up in the first half of the last decade, and after a big drop, they are one a slow climb back up. But the actual path they are on depends on the part of the US you are in.  The rule of thumb in the past was based on the fact that over a few years the price would rise enough overcome the closing costs on the two transactions. Unfortunately the slow growth in the 90's meant that many had to bring checks to closing because the equity gained wasn't enough to overcome the closing costs due to low down payment loans.   The fast growth period meant that people got into exotic loans to maximize the potential income when prices were going up 10-20% a year.  When prices dropped some found that they bought houses they couldn't afford, but couldn't sell to break even on the transaction. They were stuck and had to default on the mortgage.  In fact I have never seen a time frame when the rule of thumb ever applied. 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. There is a mathematical way to determine the answer, if you know all the variables. (And that's a big if.) For example, suppose you rent for 4 years and the price of rent never increases. The total amount you will have paid is: 600*48 = 28,800. If you currently have money sitting in the bank earning only a negligible amount of interest, and you can purchase the house for X, and then sell it for exactly what you paid 4 years from now, and you have 0 expenses otherwise, then purchasing it will save you 28,800 compared to renting. Obviously that makes some assumptions which are not possible. Now you need to calculate the variables: All of these variables can drastically effect the profit margin, and unfortunately they will vary greatly depending on your country, location, and the condition of the home. Once you estimate each of the variables, it's important to realize that if you purchase, your profit or loss can swing unexpectedly in either direction based on appreciation/depreciation which can be difficult to predict, in part because it is somewhat tied to the overall macro-economy of where you live (state or country). On the flip side, if you rent, it's pretty easy to calculate your cost as approximately 28,800 over 4 years. (Perhaps slightly more for modest rent increases.) Lastly, if you elect to purchase the house, realize that you're investing that money in real estate. You could just as easily rent and invest that money elsewhere, if you want to choose a more aggressive or conservative investment with your money. Avoiding a cost (interest) isn't quite the same as income. There is no entry, nothing for you to consider for this avoided interest.  What you do have is an expense that's no longer there, and you can decide to use that money elsewhere each month. The big problem with your argument is the 10% per year figure, because in the long term (especially if adjusted for inflation) the prices have not been going up nearly that fast. Here is a site with some nice graphs for prices over the last 40 years, and it's pretty clear to see that pretty much just what you were talking about happened, prices outpaced the ability of people to pay, which progressively locked out more and more first time buyers, and eventually that breaks the cycle, pops the bubble, and the prices adjust. There is always of course the choice to NOT buy a house, and just rent, or if you had the feeling that you are near the top of a bubble, SELL and go back to renting.  It's interesting to note that in general, rental rates did not increase at nearly the same pace as the prices in the recent bubble. (which of course made it harder for anyone who bought 'investment' properties in the recent 8 years or so to cover their payments via rental revenue.) "I don't know what country you live in or what the laws and practical circumstances of owning rental property there are. But I own a rental property in the U.S., and I can tell you that there are a lot of headaches that go with it. One: Maintenance. You say you have to pay an annual fee of 2,400 for ""building maintenance"". Does that cover all maintenance to the unit or only the exterior? I mean, here in the U.S. if you own a condo (we call a unit like you describe a ""condo"" -- if you rent it, it's an apartment; if you own it, it's a condo) you typically pay an annual fee that cover maintenance ""from the walls out"", that is, it covers maintenance to the exterior of the building, the parking lot, any common recreational areas like a swimming pool, etc. But it doesn't cover interior maintenance. If there's a problem with interior wiring or plumbing or the carpet needs to be replaced or the place needs painting, that's up to you.  With a rental unit, those expenses can be substantial. On my rental property, sure, most months the maintenance is zero: things don't break every month. But if the furnace needs to be replaced or there's a major plumbing problem, it can cost thousands. And you can get hit with lots of nitnoid expenses. While my place was vacant I turned the water heater down to save on utility expenses. Then a tenant moved in and complained that the water heater didn't work. We sent a plumber out who quickly figured out that she didn't realize she had to turn the knob up. Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right." "You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk.  In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate.  In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that ""50% of rent to costs"" rule comes into play." you are discounting the cash used, the discount rate for cash should be whatever you determine is your risk premium over the risk free rate not the equity growth rate. if equity growth rate is above your determined required return the equity investment is wealth destroying and if it is above that then it is wealth increasing.   The difficulty I see is that the scenario is all wrong, what you are really after is a rent vs buy decision. Do I take this money and rent a place or do I buy a house? In either case you could invest the remainder after paying your rent/mortgage in the equity market no?  So what really matters is the difference in cost between renting and buying.   Let  (EGR)=equity growth rate  Rent = rent M = Mortgage payment  I = income  HA =  home value appreciation  Now the question is is renting or buying a better decision two scenarios, renting first  PMT =(I - rent)  I/y = (EGR)  N =Time horizon in years  FV= Gain from cf left after paying rent    then discount to present day at your required rate of return to find present value  now scenario for buying, this is more complicated because you are investing two different cf streams at different rates and have to calculate both and add them together.  1) CF 1 the mortgage payments buy you equity in the house which appreciates (hopefully) but can be extremely volatile. This is the cf stream scenario one doesnt have, when renting the rent payments poof disappear forever and you earn nothing on them 2) The income left after mortgage payment which can be invested at the market rate measured the same way as above. **This is extremely simplistic and doesnt take into account expected maintenance, property taxes and other costs intrinsic to the investment. It also doesnt take into account the lost down payment setting you well behind the renter.   TL DR: It is complicated but you determine the required return(discount rate) based on the perceived risk of the investment and your particular views  and it doesnt matter what expected growth rates are since any investment with an expected growth rate below your required rate is wealth destroying since you are paying for something which returns cash flows too small for its risk level. If you use growth rates as discount rates then all your investments will net to zero New York City is high cost-of-living, and I have absolutely no clue why people live there.  It's a tough place, and the taxes are oppressive.  People buy a studio apartment for $150,000 that has 175 square feet (that's not a typo) plus a $700/month maintenance fee that continues after the mortgage is paid off.  And that's just what the fee is now. Our rental house (which used to be our primary residence) at 1,300 square feet has a (15-year) mortgage payment of about $800, and $1,000 per year in property taxes.  And my area isn't particularly low cost-of-living. High cost-of-living is just that.  More money flies out the door just for the privilege of living there.  You make good investments with real estate by buying property at a good price in a good location.  Those deals are everywhere, but in high CoL locations you're probably more susceptible to price fluctuations which will trap you in your property if your mortgage goes underwater. Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I don't buy your recommendation to get property in high CoL areas.  There are desirable low CoL places to live, too. "First add the inflation, then minus your expenses for the year. If you are better than that, you have done ""good"".  For example: -  1.)You have $10,000 in 2014. 2.) You need $1,000 for your expenses in 2014, so you are left with $9000. 3.) Assuming the inflation rate is at 3 percent, the $10,000 that you initially had is worth $10,300 in 2015. 4.) Now, if you can get anything over 10,300 with the $9,000 that you have you are in a better position than you were last year i.e(10300-9000)/9000 - i.e 14.44%. So anything over 14.44 percent is good. Depending on where you live, living costs and inflation may vary, so please do the calculation accordingly since this is just an example. Cheers" "after 30 years, you'd have a million dollar house vs a quarter million dollar house. You've captured three quarters of a million dollars in rent, given my napkin math hypothetical. As I figure the math, a 250,000 house appreciating to a million dollar house in 30 years requires a sustained ~4.9% appreciation every year--seems unrealistic. The historical rate of inflation, on average, has been closer to 3-3.5%; a 3% appreciation would give a final value of $589k.  This also doesn't taken into account the idea that you may have bought a property during a housing bubble, and so then you wouldn't get 3% year-over-year returns. But also, in terms of ""capturing rent"", you are not factoring in necessary or possible costs that renting doesn't have:  mortgage interest and insurance, maintenance, property tax, insurance, buying and selling associated fees, and, importantly, opportunity costs (in that the money not tied up in the house could be invested elsewhere).   So it is not such a slam dunk as you make it out.  Many use the NY Times buy/rent calculator to compare renting vs. buying." I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%).  Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above. "The three basic needs are food, clothing, and shelter. Housing falls into the third category. Because it is ""basic,"" housing takes up a large part of one's disposable income. The rule of thumb is that you shouldn't spend more than 25% of your income on rent or mortgages. And that is income BEFORE taxes. Anything much more than that takes up too much of one's budget. You simply CAN'T double housing's share of the budget from 25% to 50%. Whereas, it's easy to go from 1% to 2% for say, a cellphone upgrade. In the long run, housing prices are constrained by the size of people's housing budgets, which in turn are tied to incomes. Nowadays, that includes FOREIGN buyers. So there may be a case where west coast housing prices are driven up by Asian buyers, or Florida housing by buyers from Latin America, driving Americans out of local markets." I have purchased three properties. I will say the #1 rule is 20% things go wrong all the time. Seriously, renters are pretty terrible. If you aren't making 20% profit on the books. So add up mortgage, insurance,  all costs. Then multiply that by 1.25. Whatever number that is is what you must get for rent just to break even. I can't stress this enough. If rental rates don't support you getting that kinda price then don't get into it. This is the break even number. There seems to be no such information available. What is available is that number of claims are high and the Title Insurance companies have gone bankrupt as per the wikipedia article In 2003, according to ALTA, the industry paid out about $662 million in claims, about 4.3% percent of the $15.7 billion taken in as premiums. By comparison, the boiler insurance industry, which like title insurance requires an emphasis on inspections and risk analysis, pays 25% of its premiums in claims. However, no reference to the relationship between when claims are made and when policies are issued is found. As of 2008, the top three remaining title insurers all lost money, while LandAmerica went bankrupt and sold its title business to Fidelity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance#Industry_profitability The amount of premium received and claim made can be got from some of the companies balance sheet. For Fidelity its at http://www.investor.fnf.com/releasedetail.cfm?CompID=FNT&ReleaseID=363350 The article in here mentions the claims ratio as 5%. Refer http://www.federaltitle.com/blog/title-insuance-qaa