Home owners association for houses, pro/cons
Some examples where an HOA is a positive thing: 1) Amenities: Maybe it is professionally maintained landscaping at the front of the subdivision, or a playground, or community pool. An HOA provides a convenient way to have things like that and share the costs among all the people who benefit. 2) Legal Advocacy: I live in a neighborhood (rural) without an HOA. My neighbor decided to start an auto-repair shop on his property which was CLEARLY a violation of the covenants. There isn't really a Government body you can report them to that will swoop in and make them stop a neighbor from destroying your property values even if they signed an agreement when they bought it to the contrary. You need to hire a lawyer and sue them and that costs money and time. Also, in many cases if you wait too long they can get an exception grandfathered in because no one raised an issue about it. An HOA exists to watch for this kind of thing and nip it in the bud rather than making homeowners have to hassle with the time/expense. 3) Independence: Assuming no HOA, and assuming you are okay with suing your neighbor over violating a covenant. That makes for a very uncomfortable situation between you and that neighbor. Having a neutral 3rd party take action on your behalf anonymously can greatly help that situation. It's not all about making people ditch their basketball goals, or garden gnomes. They also protect you from other obnoxious stuff like junky mobile homes in high-end neighborhoods, the guy who blocks half the street permanently with his RV/Boat parked on the curb, three foot tall grass that is an eyesore and a fire hazard, a taco stand opening in your neighbors garage,  etc. At its best, a HOA provides the same benefits as a condo association -- shared investment in the shared neighborhood resources/environment.  At its worst, a HOA has the same problems as a condo association, potentially creating unreasonable constraints on what you can or can't do with your own property because your decisions might affect the value of someone else's property or demanding shared investment in something you don't consider worthwhile. Basically, if an HOA is active in your neighborhood, (A) make sure you know its history and biases before you buy, and (B) make sure you're active in it, or you may be unpleasantly surprised by its decisions. "As I understand it the basic premiss of a HOA is to ease communication between neighbors and help work towards common community goals.  As I understand it the reality is that the HOA works to keep the community homogenous so there are no ""sore thumb"" neighbors.   As to why look for one or avoid one.  If you would want a uniform image out of your neighbors and don't mind towing the party line, then they are for you.  If you don't care about what your neighbors do with their property (within civic ordinance) and would like freedom to do things different from your neighbors (paint your house blue, hang a clothes line, increase the size of your flower beds), then they are to be avoided." I think it depends a lot on your idea of how you should relate to your neighbors. Personally, I think that I should be allowed to do just about whatever I want with my property, and I grant my neighbor the same right. If my neighbor wants to paint his house purple with orange stripes and fill his front lawn with pink flamingos, I think that's his right. If I don't like it, I don't have to look at his house. (I would draw the line at things that I cannot avoid by simply looking the other way, like running jet engines in his back yard at 2 in the morning, as I could not avoid the noise. Or dumping toxic waste on the street, as it will cause health problems. Etc.) Others think it IS their business what their neighbor does with his property and want to be able to control it. They want someone who has the authority to force everyone in the neighborhood to paint their house in colors deemed acceptable, to meet certain requirements for yard work. And that's what Home Owners Associations are for: to require that everyone in the neighborhood maintain their property according to a standard set by the HOA, which should theoretically represent the wishes of the majority. Of course the price you pay for giving you the right to tell your neighbor what kind of fence he is allowed to have is that now your neighbors can tell you what kind of fence you can have. Advocates of HOAs often say that they are necessary to protect property values. Personally I think this is something of a circular argument: I must have the right to prevent my neighbor from doing something that, in my opinion, makes his house ugly, not because I necessarily have no choice but to stare out my window at his house all day and be repulsed by it, but because someday I may want to sell my house to someone who will have no choice but to stare out the window at his house all day and be repulsed by it and so will not want to buy my house. Of course if we all just minded our own business, this wouldn't be an issue. Okay, this was pretty much an anti-HOA post, but I did TRY to state the other side of it. "I agree with the basic purpose of an HOA. Unlike the poster above Jay, I do believe that people painting their houses purple will definitely affect the value of my house or property. I for one would not want to live next to someone who has a wild purple house, even though it is his right to do so. In saying that I know that there are very few people who would want to buy my house were it situated next to the ""purple house"". So in the sense of limiting known eyesores I agree with the purpose of HOA's. That being said, I do not agree with the fact that HOA's are not regulated and that its rules are formed by community members who may be very strict on what or what isn't allowed. If it were simple rules like not painting the house disturbing colors (we all know what they are) or not having junk cars  or loud music after a certain time (except on holidays or special calendar days like New Years etc."
"In some cases perhaps, but in others not.  Several homes near me were sold over and over again during the bubble years (at incrementally higher and higher sale prices) -- the last owners in nearly all cases defaulted and the banks (after dragging their feet for a couple of years) finally foreclosed and sold the homes off cheap.  In all but one of the ""distressed sale"" cases, the people buying the houses now ARE in fact moving into them as their primary home (the exception being a current resident who bought the adjacent home with the intentions of fixing it up &amp; renting it out, I believe at least initially to a family member); but in ALL cases (in no small part due to the fact that they were able to purchase the properties cheap) these new owners are investing substantial money into fixing them up (new roof &amp; gutters, new windows &amp; doors, paint and/or siding, often all new carpeting, some landscaping, etc).  Also, from the perspective of our homeowners association, all of these new people think our annual HOA fees are a ""bargain"", whereas the previous bubble-era ""homeowners"" (if, having invested almost nothing, they could truly be called that) did nothing but whine and complain (well, and once they began defaulting on their mortgages, they also defaulted on their HOA fees).  So it's a win-win for our neighborhood. We're getting good, solid residents who are planning on taking care of their properties... the exact opposite of what you are claiming.   (The ""house-flippers"" you decry were the ones buying with ""no money down"" during the bubble era -- and they nearly killed the neighborhood.)" (Disclosure - I am a real estate agent, involved with houses to buy/sell, but much activity in rentals) I got a call from a man and his wife looking for an apartment. He introduced itself, described what they were looking for, and then suggested I google his name. He said I'd find that a few weeks back, his house burned to the ground and he had no insurance. He didn't have enough savings to rebuild, and besides needing an apartment, had a building lot to sell.  Insurance against theft may not be at the top of your list. Don't keep any cash, and keep your possessions to a minimum. But a house needs insurance for a bank to give you a mortgage. Once paid off, you have no legal obligation, but are playing a dangerous game. You are right, it's an odds game. If the cost of insurance is .5% the house value and the chance of it burning down is 1 in 300 (I made this up) you are simply betting it won't be yours that burns down.  Given that for most people, a paid off house is their largest asset, more value that all other savings combined, it's a risk most would prefer not to take.  Life insurance is a different matter. A person with no dependents has no need for insurance. For those who are married (or have a loved one), or for parents, insurance is intended to help survivors bridge the gap for that lost income. The 10-20 times income value for insurance is just a recommendation, whose need fades away as one approaches independence. I don't believe in insurance as an investment vehicle, so this answer is talking strictly term. "I'm a ""new"" (last 2 years) homeowner.  For me, at least, benefits of owning far outweigh renting.  $8000 tax credit for the first time homebuyer, a massive deduction every year for your tax return, the option to rent out rooms to offset the large majority of my mortgage payment, and the real estate trend indicating that the value of my house *should* increase over time.  I think that if one has the means to buy in the current environment rather than renting, they certainly should.  You get no return on your money if you rent." All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost. Pros: Cons: Before the housing bubble the conventional wisdom was to buy as much home as you could afford, thereby borrowing as much you can afford.  Because variable rates lead to lower mortgages, they were preferred by many as you could buy more house.   This of course lead to many people losing their home and many thousands of dollars. A bubble is not necessary to trigger a chain of events that can lead to loss of a home.  If an interest only borrower is late on a payment, this often triggers a rate increase.  Couple that with some other things that can happen negatively, and you are up $hit's creek. IMO it is not wise. Thinking of personal residence as investment is how we got the bubble and crash in housing prices, and the Great Recession. There is no guarantee that a house will appreciate, or even retain value. It's also an extremely illiquid item; selling it, especially if you're seeking a profit, can take a year or more. ' Housing is not guaranteed to appreciate constantly, or at all. Tastes change and renovations rarely pay for themselves. Things wear out and have costs. Neighborhoods change in popularity. Without rental income and the ability to write off some of the costs as business expense, it isn't clear the tax advantage closes that gap, especislly as the advantage is limited to the taxes upon your mortgage interest (by deducting that from AGI).  If this is the flavor of speculation you want to engage in, fine, but I've seen people screw themselves over this way and wind up forced to sell a house for a loss. By all means hope your home will be profitable, count it as part of your net wealth... but generally Lynch is wrong here, or at best oversimplified. A house can be an investment (or perhaps more accurately a business), or your home, but -- unless you're renting out the other half of a duplex,which splits the difference -- trying to treat it as both is dangerous accounting. Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property?   Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity?   Thanks for the help.  *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank? "Bad areas are tough to value as a owner-occupied property, because the business model for being a slumlord is to rent apartments in absentia, usually to tenants receiving goverment subsidies such as Section 8 vouchers. The vouchers are based on a prevailing rent, which are often on par with nice suburban apartment complexes due to how that ""prevailing"" rate is calculated. So the value of the house is really an annuity calculation. You figure out the potential rental cash flow and apply whatever your local market premium is. The point is, doing an apples to apples comparison is going to be tough, and justifying the cost of repairs that aren't remediating health and safety issues probably won't be recoverable from a home valuation standpoint. A buyer would probably rip out your central air conditioner and sell it! If I were in your shoes, I'd look at the time horizon that you think you're going to be there and amortize the cost over that period. Assuming your mortgage is small and you're staying for about 5 years, spending $10k costs you about $170 a month. Your reward is a modern A/C and heating system. Compare that cost to the cost of moving and your desires and see if it's worth it to you." "Good debt and ""Bad debt"" are just judgement calls.  Each person has their own opinion on when it is acceptable to borrow money for something, and when it is not.  For some, it is never acceptable to borrow money for something; they won't even borrow money to buy a house.  Others, of course, are in debt up to their eyeballs. All debt costs money in interest.  So when evaluating whether to borrow or not, you need to ask yourself, ""Is the benefit I am getting by borrowing this money worth the cost?"" Home ownership has a lot of advantages: For many, these advantages, coupled with the facts that home mortgages are available at extremely low interest rates and that home mortgage interest is tax-deductible (in the U.S.), make home mortgages ""worth it"" in the eyes of many. Contrast that with car ownership: For these reasons, there are many people who consider the idea of borrowing money to purchase a car a bad idea.  I have written an answer on another question which outlines a few reasons why it is better to pay cash for a car." I wish this was the case in Canada.  I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work.    In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss.  In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt.    Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution.  It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt. "Neither you nor others have mentioned the costs of being a homeowner.  First, there are monetary costs. If you own a house, you have to pay taxes. They will vary by jurisdiction, but are usually not zero. You also need insurance, which again comes with monthly rates.  Then, once in a while, you'll be hit with unpleasant lump sum payments. In 30 years, the mortgage is over and you own the house - but by that time, it will probably need a new roof. That's in the price range of a new car. And over that time, you'll rack up several other repairs which your landlord covers when you rent.  Another thing which feels less like an expense emotionally but ends up thinning your wallet is the cosmetic changes you make just because it's your own home. You wouldn't put marble floors in the bathroom if you rent, but you might be tempted to if you live in the house. It might be even worth it from a life satisfaction point of view, but we are talking finance right now, and that's a minus.  And then there are the opportunity costs. A house binds you geographically. You may pass up on a nice job offer because your house is too far away, for example. Or you might experience liquidity problems, because a house is difficult to turn into money in a hurry. If you are able to do so, it is usually a much larger sum than you need, and you are paying the costs inherent in that large transaction. These are just examples, you can probably come up with more costs.  Then, it is not sure how much money you can get of the house if you change your mind. Say you take this job at the other end of the country, or you become a parent of four and need more space. At the time you decide to sell, the market may have gone down due to the overall state of the economy, or to the house location's popularity, or your own house may have turned undesirable (what if you get a mold infestation which would only go away if you strip it to the concrete and rebuild?) You could let it to renters, but that's a hassle of its own. It takes time to find renters, it may be expensive (income tax, regulations like Energieausweis in Germany), it is risky (if they don't pay, you might not see money even if you sue them).  Then there is the problem that prices reflect not some kind of ""true"" value, but the intersection of supply and demand. And the home market is not as efficient as in a first semester microeconomics textbook. The buyers of private homes deal in small volumes, have little knowledge in the market, pay intermediaries' cuts, and are emotionally attached to the idea of ""owning my own house"". This drives demand up and creates higher prices than if you had perfectly rational actors on both sides. People pay money for the feeling of being home owners, so those who forego spending on that feeling have more money to invest in something else.  Owning something always causes expenses. You have to calculate the savings of having the house vs. the expenses of having it, before you can decide if it is a good deal or not. If you only calculate one side of the equation, you'll be badly mistaken." "Home ownership is thought to be a lifetime investment and is touted as a big part of the ""American Dream.""  That's changing now, as a lot of younger people have seen their parents' lifetime investments become worthless thanks to a lot of shoddy book keeping and lending practices. The 15-year mortgage is becoming more common these days, but that's still three times longer than what Canadians are achieving." My experience with owning a home is that its like putting down roots and can be like an anchor holding you to an area.  Before considering whether you can financially own a home consider some of the other implications. Once you own it you are stuck for awhile and cannot quickly move away like you can with renting.  So if a better job opportunity comes up or your employer moves you to another office across town that doubles your commute time, you'll be regretting the home purchase as it will be a barrier to moving to a more convenient location.   I, along with my fiancée and two children, are being forced to move out of my parents home ASAP.  Do not rush buying a home.  Take your time and find what you want.  I made the mistake once of buying a home thinking I could take on some DIY remodeling to correct some features I wasn't fond of.  Life intervenes and finding extra time for DIY house updates doesn't come easy, especially with children.   Speaking of children, consider the school district when buying a home too.  Often times homes in good school districts cost more.  If you don't consider the school district now, then you may be faced with a difficult decision when the kids start school.   IF you are confident you won't want to move anytime soon and can find a house you like and want to jump into home ownership there are some programs that can help first time buyers, but they can require some effort on your part.  FHA has a first time buyer program with a 3.5% down payment.  You will need to search for a lender that offers FHA loans and work with them.  FHA covers this program by charging mortgage insurance every month that's part of your house payment. Fannie Mae has the HomeReady program where first time home buyers can purchase a foreclosed home from their inventory for as little as 3% down and possibly get up to 3% from the seller to apply toward closing costs.  Private mortgage insurance (PMI) is required with this program too.  Their inventory of homes can be found on the https://www.homepath.com/ website. There is also NACA, which requires attending workshops and creating a detailed plan to prove you're ready for homeownership.  This might be a good option if they have workshops in your area and you want to talk with someone in person. https://www.naca.com/about/ I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans.  I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans.  I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score. One thing you may be missing is the possibility of a special assessment on the condo. If the foundation cracks, you may be looking at tens of thousands to cover it. This would largely depend on the condo board's reserve funds. Speaking of reserve funds, have you remembered to factor in condo fees? You may also be forgetting to factor in property taxes and closing costs (legal fees and realtor fees). The latter, you'll have to pay when buying and when selling. Now, ten years is a good length of time. If your mother really will live in the condo for ten years, there's a very good chance it does indeed make more sense to buy than to rent. It's very possible you already factored in everything I mentioned above.