One crucial point I don’t see anyone else has addressed so far that factors into the benefits of home ownership versus renting involves the build-up of equity over time. The premise of this question hinges on the assumption that a home PURCHASE involves an up-front outlay of money and a consistent “investment” over time (the monthly mortage payment driving down the principal owed to zero) in exchanged for a long-lived asset that provides value over (say) 30 years.
This was the pattern of “consumption” if you will in the 1940s through maybe the 1970s. A typical home buyer put 10-20 percent down, made mortgage payments for 30 years and over that 30 years, the homeowner tended to key expenses for required periodic maintenance like roofing, plumbing repairs, maybe window replacements, etc. The typical homeowner also paid the mortgage down over that time and did NOT take out a home equity loan to fund other expenses. At the end of 30 years of original mortgage payments, the home was fully paid for and the homeowner had equity equal to the original purchase price plus thirty years of appreciation in real-estate over that time. But they also had a 30 year old home that may have looked like a time machine.
That pattern of events became far less common starting in the 1980s for multiple reasons. As Americans move around (I think the average American moves every seven years…), rather than moving from one nominal $150,000 house to another $150,000 equivalent house (e.g. a physical equivalent of their current $150,000 home plus market appreciation), many Americans took the opportunity of a move to move to a more expensive house with a larger loan. I think this trend was encouraged at the time as an example of the “little guy” finally using “leverage” like the big guys to use frequent moves as a way to lever into larger and larger homes to ride rising home price trends into higher amounts of equity.
This made some sense if an employer was paying a 10-20 percent relocation fee in addition to actual relo expenses for every move. For someone earning (say) $100,000 a year and collecting a 20 percent relo premium every 4-5 years as they move from job to job, that’s an extra $80,000 dropped into a home over twenty years courtesy of the employer that might then appreciate 7-10 percent per year to add $309,000 over twenty years.
The second factor that negated this is that home equity loans skyrocketed in popularity beginning in the 1980s and (again) were pitched to average homeowners as a way for them to benefit from leverage by exploiting the “trapped equity” in their home just like the big guys. If this “equity” was being spent on other long-lived assets like advanced education that produced a long-term payback over time, this pattern might have made financial sense. Instead, for the majority of homeowners, dollars from home equity loans were instead spent on zero-longevity consumption spending like vacations, dining out, etc. or rapidly depreciating assets like expensive cars that were worthless in 7-10 years.
How damaging is this financially?
Assume home prices are growing a steady seven percent yearly. A home purchased for $150,000 would be worth $210,382 in five years or $295,072 in ten years. If at five years, the owner takes out a home equity loan for $60,382 for five years at 7 percent and spends it on a BMW that would have otherwise not been affordable, in another five years, that person now owns a BMW worth maybe $15,000. The house is still worth $295,072 on the market and the owner has paid back the borrowed equity but they have paid $11,356 in interest on a $60,382 dollar loan that tempted them into spending more on a car than they could afford. They have “lost” the interest and depreciation on the car, totalling $56,738.
Now sure, to keep the example simple I didn’t factor in the intangible value gained from the feeling of superiority of driving a $60,000 BMW or the value of the free coffee enjoyed in the waiting room of the BMW dealer or the extra friendship gained from getting to know your personal BMW service representative and watching his kids grow up in the photos on his desk… (smile)
What if the same numbers were applied to a home equity loan for a home remodeling project? The original financial benefits of buying a home and riding the real estate appreciation over the life of the mortage only hold true if the home actually purchased served as a long term asset. If instead, the owner purchased the home, then every ten years remodeled the kitchen and bathrooms and followed the latest trends by replacing flooring, expensive countertops, and appliances, they are essentially DESTROYING a large portion of the existing equity in the home and replacing it. A new kitchen in a current $400,000 home in 2024 can easily cost $50,000. A major remodel may make sense every 25-30 years but if done every 10 years, it’s the equivalent of setting money on fire.
This isn’t to shame what someone decides to do with their own home and money but from a purely economic perspective, the pattern of EXTRACTING equity from a home and using it to subsidize spending on assets that are NOT long-lived and doing so at levels that involve additional debt pretty much defeats the ability of home ownership to create a nest egg.
WTH