Site icon Early Retirement Now

Real Estate: Buy or Rent?

If there’s one major disagreement in the Early Retirement community it’s on buying vs. renting your home:

We personally believe that the pros and cons of homeownership are about balanced. The median household with the median income and wealth living in the median U.S. city should be about indifferent between renting and owning. The personal idiosyncratic factors would tip the scale in one direction or the other:

In favor of renting:

In favor of owning:

Owning your primary residence is not an investment

[Update on 11/15/2017: I changed my mind on this point, please see this post: See that house over there? It’s an investment!]

What should never be in doubt is that your owner-occupied home is not an investment. A rental property generating passive income certainly is, and we can discuss whether it’s a better or worse investment that equities. A rental property will generate a return equal to R = rental yield + appreciation – costs.

Rental yields will likely range from about 4% in very expensive densely populated areas to 8%, maybe 10% in really small markets. Costs are expressed as a percentage of the home value and would include everything from taxes, maintenance, repairs, insurance to depreciation, even utilities if comparing this with a utilities paid rental. Costs can be as low as 2% but also easily as high as 5% of the home value, especially when you include utilities.

Now, if you live in your property yourself you forego that rental income, worth anywhere between 4% and 10% yield, making the return of ownership most definitely inferior to equities. One could argue, of course, that the first 1,000 or 1,200 square feet of the house, depending on your family size, are an investment, because you would otherwise have to pay rent. But houses above that minimum size are not an investment. Unless of course, you assume a massive expected appreciation, and in 2008/9 we saw where that ended. In fact, if you assume that home price appreciation is equal to inflation, which it has been for decades until the 2000s housing bubble, your owner occupied house has a negative expected real yield, equal to the annual costs. Your house is essentially a money-eating machine. Hence the advice: buy the smallest possible home you can get away with! It’s no wonder that people who do the opposite and buy as much house as they can (and more) never seem to get ahead financially. The portion of the investment that could potentially generate a good return, rental income, is spent on themselves. People are robbing Peter to pay Paul!

But what about the tax benefits of owning?

We would argue it’s the other way around. You heard that right, you could have more tax benefits from renting, unless you are in a very high tax bracket. How is that possible? Your landlord, whether it’s a mom and pop rental business formed as an LLC, a real estate private equity group or a large corporation (e.g. REIT), can write off every last dollar of expenses: mortgage interest, loan origination fees, appraisal fees, property taxes, maintenance, property management, insurance, repairs, landscaping, you name it.

But all of that tax advantage is pocketed by the landlord, right? Wrong. In a competitive marketplace all or at least most of these savings should be passed on to you the customer/tenant. Think about how technology transformed how much we pay for phone calls. It used to cost $1.00+ to call internationally only 20 years ago. Costs went down to essentially zero, and the phone companies cannot pocket the $1.00 per minute. They have to pass on 99% of the savings to you, the costumer. Thus, as a renter you may not literally enjoy all the tax benefits, but you effectively do.

If you own a place, you can write off mortgage interest and property taxes. But there are limitations. Married filing jointly, you get a standard deduction of $12,600 p.a. (2015), so only expenses over that amount effectively reduce your tax liability. And good luck trying to write off the expenses for the gardener or the lost weekends from refinishing your back porch. Another thing to consider: If you are still working you could be subject to the Alternative Minumum Tax (AMT). Mortgage interest is deductible under the AMT, but property tax isn’t. Of course, once you are retired, you will likely no longer be subject to the AMT unless you haul in some serious dough!

Thinking about it, the landlord/tenant tax benefits are so insanely lucrative, here would be a cool way of utilizing them: person A and person B each buy a comparable house, each held by their respective real estate holding LLC. Then person A rents person B’s house and vice versa, each at a below market rate. The respective LLCs can expense everything, even items that no homeowner can write off, like landscaping, repairs, insurance etc. Each LLC will make a small loss, which probably can only be declared passive loss. But if you have other passive income from rental property each landlord can use the losses from the house swap to offset passive income elsewhere. I wonder if people can weigh in and see if this is legal! Disclaimer: If you haven’t read the actual disclaimers please do, because if you implement this tax avoidance scheme and you get into trouble with the IRS don’t blame us!

The final verdict

Whether or not our condo was a good investment up until now, we will keep it until early 2018. The home equity will come in handy as additional cushion for our cash hoard. Once retired, we may plan to travel extensively, at least for a few years, so renting might be a good option then. Once we settle down and find a more permanent spot, we may decide to buy. If so, we would buy the smallest and cheapest place we can get away with and pay all cash.

 

Exit mobile version