Why do some people say a house “not an investment”?
The below assessment is for primary residences as opposed to income properties. The truth is that with the exception of a housing bubble, the value of a house might outpace inflation by one or two percent.  According to the US Census, the price of a new home per square foot only went up 4.42% between 1963 and 2008, where as inflation was 4.4%.  Since home sizes increased, the price of a new home overall outpaced inflation by 1% at 5.4% (source).  According to Case-Shiller, inflation adjusted prices increased a measly .4% from 1890-2004 (see graph here). On the other hand your down payment money and the interest towards owning that home might be in a mutual fund earning you north of eight percent.  If you don't put down enough of a down payment to avoid PMI, you'll be literally throwing away money to get yourself in a home that could also be making money. Upgrades to your home that increase its value - unless you have crazy do-it-yourself skills and get good deals on the materials - usually don't return 100% on an investment.  The best tend to be around 80%. On top of the fact that your money is going towards an asset that isn't giving you much of a return, a house has costs that a rental simply doesn't have (or rather, it does have them, but they are wrapped into your rent) - closing costs as a buyer, realtor fees and closing costs as a seller, maintenance costs, and constantly escalating property taxes are examples of things that renters deal with only in an indirect sense. NYT columnist David Leonhart says all this more eloquently than I ever could in: There's an interactive calculator at the NYT that helps you apply Leonhart's criteria to your own area. None of this is to say that home ownership is a bad decision for all people at all times.  I'm looking to buy myself, but I'm not buying as an investment.  For example, I would never think that it was OK to stop funding my retirement because my house will eventually fund it for me.  Instead I'm buying because home ownership brings other values than money that a rental apartment would never give me and a rental home would cost more than the same home purchase (given 10 years). When I purchased my house I struggled with this same idea.  I felt sick to my stomach signing a contract stating how much money I now owe a bank.  However, the lawyer I was using put it in terms that eased the nausea a little (I still hate owing that much money - but it's a little more palatable).   His words, paraphrased: At the end of the day, you have to have a place to stay.  Your mortgage payment is replacing your rent except in this case, you're paying yourself instead of someone else.  You lose a little flexibility in being able to up and move with relative ease.  However, you've lived in apartments, you know that rent almost only goes up.  Your mortgage will not.   He wrote out some numbers and basically showed that everything evened out except mortgage payments will give you property as opposed to paying for someone else's property. To answer your question though - others have already stated - you'll get a better return in the stock market (usually).  But unless you're really really bad at real estate evaluation - you should make some money off your house when you decide to sell. With an investment, you tend to buy it for a very specific purpose, namely to make you some money. Either via appreciation (ie, it hopefully increases value after you take all the fees and associated costs into account, you sell the investment, realise the gains) or via a steady cashflow that, after you subtracted your costs, leaves you with a profit. Your primary residence is a roof over your head and first and foremost has the function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. It might go up in value, which is somewhat nice, but that's not its main purpose and for as long as you live in the house, you cannot realise the increase in value as you probably don't want to sell it. Of course the remortgage crowd would suggest that you can increase the size of the mortgage (aka the 'home atm') but (a) we all know how that movie ended and (b) you'd have to factor in the additional interest in your P&L calculation. You can also buy real estate as a pure investment, ie with the only objective being that you plan to make money on this. Normally you'd buy a house or an apartment with a view of renting it out and try to increase your wealth both due to the asset's appreciation (hopefully) and the rent, which in this scenario should cover the mortgage, all expenses and still leave you with a bit of profit. All that said, I've never heard someone use the reasoning you describe as a reason not to buy a house and stay in an apartment - if you need a bigger place for your family and can afford to buy something bigger, that falls under the shelter provision and not under the investment. "A house is a funny kind of investment. Normally when you invest, you do it to make money. The return on a house, though, isn't principally real money, it's the imputed rent - money that you would have needed to pay to rent the house. The thing about this imputed rent is that you consume it right away. Getting a bigger house and putting more money into it doesn't save you any money, it's just a way to consume more ""house"" - so, unlike regular investing, it's not really responsible and doesn't contribute to your financial well-being." Your house is not an asset, it is a liability. Assets feed you. Liabilites eat you. Robert Kiyosaki From a cash flow perspective your primary residence (ie your house) is an investment but it is not an asset. If you add up all the income your primary residence generates and subtract all the expenses it incurs, you will see why investment gurus claim this. Perform the same calculations for a rental property and you're more likely to find it has a positive cash flow. If it has a negative cash flow, it's not an asset either; it's a liability. A rental property with a negative cash flow is still an investment, but cash flow gurus will tell you it's a bad investment. While it is possible that your house may increase in value and you may be able to sell it for more than you paid, will you be able to sell it for more than all of the expenses incurred while living there? If so, you have an asset.  Some people will purchase a home in need of repair, live in it and upgrade it, sell it for profit exceeding all expenses, and repeat. These people are flipping houses and generating capital gains based on their own hard work. In this instance a person's primary residence can be an asset. How much of an asset is calculated when the renovated house is sold. "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)." "One reason I have heard (beside to keep you paying rent) is the cost of maintenance and improvements.  If you hire someone else to do all the work for you, then it may very well be the case, though it is not as bad as a car. Many factors come into play:   If you are lucky, you may end up with a lot that is worth more than the house on it in a few decades' time. Personally, I feel that renting is sometimes better than owning depending on the local market.  That said, when you own a home, it is yours.  You do have to weigh in such factors as being tied down to a certain location to some extent.  However, only the police can barge in -- under certain circumstances -- where as a landlord can come in whenever they feel like, given proper notice or an ""emergency.""  Not to mention that if someone slams a door so hard that it reverberates through the entire place, you can actually deal with it. The point of this last bit is the question of home ownership vs renting is rather subjective.  Objectively, the costs associated with home ownership are the drags that may make it a bad investment.  However, it is not like car ownership, which is quite honestly rarely an invesment." "You're hearing alot of talk about housing (and by implication property) not being an investment today because on the downside of a market, the conventional wisdom is to be negative about buying things that have lost value. Just as it was dumb to listen to your coworker about hot .Com IPOs in 1999, it's dumb to listen to the real estate naysayers now. Here's another question along a similar vein: Were stocks a good investment in the spring of 2009?  The conventional wisdom said: ""No, stocks are scary! Buy T-Bills or Gold Bullion!"". The people who made money said: ""Wait a second, Goldman Sachs is down like 75%? IBM is down like 30%, are they going anywhere? Time to buy."" The wrong house is a poor investment in any economy. Buying a house in Detriot in 1970 was not a good move. Buying a house that needs $50k in work, not a good move. Buying a condo with a bankrupt HOA in Florida is not a good idea. But a good house that is well cared for is a great investment.  I'm living in a house right now that is 80 years old, well maintained and affordable on a single income. A similar home a few blocks away sold in May for the same price as we paid in 2006. I'm paying about 20% less than I would for an apartment, and we'll think about moving in 2016 or 2017, by which time I'll probably have put $30-50k into the house. (Roof, kitchen, exterior painting, minor renovation)" "I invested in single family homes and made ok.  Houses can be an investment. (though the OP seems to equate ""house"" with primary residence)   Just like any other investment buying houses has risks.   I would not treat your primary residence or a vacation  home as an investment.  That is asking for trouble, but for many many years it was safe to assume that you would make a good return on it, and many people did.   If you evaluate the numbers for purchase price, rental market, etc and find that rentals or flipping is worth your exposure then by all means, do it.  But treating your primary residence as an investment apparently is what that comment means. Just like the stock market, many people have gotten wealthy on homes and there are lots of people who lost their shirts." "There's an old saying:  ""Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance."" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment.  It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value.  Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone.  They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision.  There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too."
Buying a starter home is not a bad idea if you have a stable job and plan to stay in the area for a long time. Owning a house that you can afford is a very good idea.  Purchasing a home that you do not want to live in long term is not a good idea. People who move frequently pay a lot in real estate commissions, as you've mentioned, but they also pay loan origination and title fees. Mortgage interest is tax-deductible, and many people consider home ownership to better than renting because of that fact alone. What they do not consider are costs of property taxes, HOA fees (common in condos and townhouses, but also possible in single family homes), and being tied to piece of real estate if the job market changes and they need to move. The easy rule of thumb is to consider the ratio of total price to one year of rent. If you could purchase for $200k, but you would rent for $800 per month then the price to rent ratio is 20.83. Depending on the market most homes fall between 10 and 20. When the ratio is less than 10, then you would be at a great disadvantage renting instead of purchasing, when the ratio is greater than 20, you would be foolish to buy instead of rent unless there was some other compelling factor motivating the purchase. "I am reminded of a dozen year old dialog. I asked my 6 year old, ""If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"" She replied, ""Four, you can call it anything you want, but the dog still has four legs.""  Early on in my marriage, my wife was heading out to the mall, and remarked that she was ""going to invest in a new pair of shoes."" I explained to her that while I was happy she would have new shoes to wear, words have meaning, and unless she was going to buy the ruby red slippers Dorothy wore in the Wizard of Oz, or Elvis' Blue Suede Shoes, her's were not expected to rise in value and weren't an investment. Some discussion followed, and we agreed even the treadmill, which is now 20 years old, was not an 'investment' despite the fact that it saved us more than its cost in a combined 40 years of gym memberships we did not buy.  In the end, no one who is financially savvy calls a lottery ticket an investment, and few who buy them acknowledge that it's simply throwing money away." &gt;  and investors would have stopped wanting to buy them, which would cause interest rates on homes to go up  Unless you're lumping the MIP into the interest rate (which I assume you're not, given you mentioned it in the first sentence), the logic here doesn't follow. Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn. For an investment to appreciate in value, one of two things needs to happen: 1) Demand for that particular item needs to increase. 2) The supply of that item needs to decrease. Houses are good because everyone needs a place to live, but there is a finite amount of land.  No matter how much you invest in Manhatten real estate, Manhatten ain't growin'.  The trick there is to find an area that people are going to want to live in when you're ready to sell.  Specific vintages of wines and spirits are another good example, because it's literally impossible to create more of that vintage. Cars, and most consumer goods, usually don't appreciate because they don't last long enough.  Most cars are resold within three to five years after the initial purchase.  This is also why jewelry is a good investment; properly cared for, it can last centuries without wearing out. So, look for something durable that has a limited supply. &gt; These people have no hope of ever making a return on their investment in their homes.  That's... not really the point of a house. Thinking like this is how we got into the housing crisis. At the literal end of the day, it's somewhere to keep your stuff while you sleep. Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends.   It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent.  Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in.  If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between.  As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term.  To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time.  Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view. Real estate is a lousy investment because: Renting a home and buying a home, all else being equal, are pretty similar in costs in the long term (if you can force yourself to invest the would-be down payment). So, buy a home if you want to enjoy the benefits of home ownership. Buy a home if you need to hedge against rising housing prices (e.g. you're on a fixed income and couldn't cope if rent increased a bunch when the economy heated up). Maybe buy a home if you're in a high tax bracket to save yourself from being taxed on your imputed rent, if it works out that way (consult your financial advisor). But don't consider it a really great investment vehicle. Returns are average and the risk profile isn't that attractive. "Your agent doesn't understand what ""willing to sell"" means in the housing big market.  Willing to sell doesn't mean they can wait forever to sell. It used to be these people were moving so they had to sell their house. Now the people who own houses don't need to sell it because they can just sit around and rent it to someone.   If people are unwilling to list the house they are unwilling to sell the house." In general people make a few key mistakes with property: 1) Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well. 2) Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth.  3) Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. 4) Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. 5) Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. 6) Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20yr+ contracts/activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential – particularly in fast moving jobs like software development.  Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close, it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds. "It very much comes down to question of semantics and your particular situation. Some people do not view a house (and most upgrades) as an investment, but rather an expense.  I certainly agree that this is probably the case if you pay someone else to make the repairs and upgrades.  However, if you are a serious DIYer, that may not be the case.  Of course, if the house is a money pit and/or you were unfortunate to buy when prices where ridiculously high, you'll have a hard time making any money on this ""investment.""  To continue this game of semantics, you may also consider the value you extract from your home while you are living in it. On to the mortgage itself.  Chances are that it is a long term, relatively low rate loan and that the interest is deductible.  So, there are some disadvantages to paying it down early, even without early payment penalties.  Paying down early on the principal is a disadvantage from a tax perspective.  How much of a disadvantage hinges on the rate. Now, a debt is a liability on your personal balance sheet.  It drags down any returns you may have from investing.  However, a home lone is not generally subject to the cardinal rule of paying off your high interest debt before investing.  It should not be relatively high and it pays for something necessary.  It may be that any credit card debt you have may have paid for something considered necessary.  However, with the relatively high interest rates, you have to question just how necessary any credit card debt really is.  Not to mention that there is no tax advantage. So, it comes down to the fact that a home loan should be relatively low interest, paying for something you must have and that you hopefully have some tax advantage from the interest you pay on it." Investing in property hoping that it will gain value is usually foolish; real estate increases about 3% a year in the long run.  Investing in property to rent is labor-intensive; you have to deal with tenants, and also have to take care of repairs.  It's essentially getting a second job. I don't know what the word pension implies in Europe; in America, it's an employer-funded retirement plan separate from personally funded retirement.  I'd invest in personally funded retirement well before buying real estate to rent, and diversify my money in that retirement plan widely if I was within 10-20 years of retirement. I think it is just semantics, but this example demonstrates what they mean by that: If you put $100 in a CD today, it will grow and you will be able to take out a greater amount plus the original principal at a later time. If you put $100 extra on your house payment today, you may save some money in the long run, but you won't have an asset that you wouldn't otherwise have at the end of the term that you can draw on without selling the property. But of course, you can't live on the street, so you need another house. So ultimately you can't easily realize the investment. If you get super technical, you could probably rationalize it as an investment, just like you could call clipping coupons investing, but it all comes down to what your financial goals are. What the advisers are trying to tell you is that you shouldn't consider paying down your mortgage early as an acceptable substitute for socking away some money for retirement or other future expenses. House payments for a house you live in should be considered expenses, in my opinion. So my view is that paying off a note early is just a way of cutting expenses. Your friends are overlooking a couple of problems with house prices and salaries being out of whack: Home 'equity' is a paper gain unless you realize it by selling the house. If you don't, but use the 'home ATM', all you're doing is piling up more debt that's secured on an asset that has downside risk. Ask anybody who's refinanced their house to buy a new boat or SUV in 2006/2007. In other words you're remortgaging the chickens before the eggs hatched. Of course they're also forgetting that all this debt will have to be paid back at some point, and that usually takes income, not equity. In a certain sense the housing market is a pyramid scheme that requires an influx of new buyers to maintain prices. Very simply, if you can't sell your house to buy a bigger one because the first time buyer you're trying to sell it to can't afford the down payment or the payment on the mortgage, then you can't sell your house to buy a bigger/better/nicer one and the next person in the chain can't sell his/hers. Cue the domino effect. House prices are only sustainable if people actually can afford to buy houses and if there's a massive disconnect between house prices and salaries, then house prices will fall eventually. It might just take a little longer depending on the amount of creative financing options that will eventually dry up. It might be a good idea, because later in life if a large expense shows up or an income source disappears, you will only have the mortgage payment, rather than a mortgage AND a student loan payment.