Quote:
Originally Posted by Flacht3
I think it's more of a "better to have the equity" than "not have the equity" scenario.
Let's say your rent is a moderate $3k. After 10 years, you'll have spent $360,000 with nothing to show for it. At least with the equity, if and when it's time to move you can at least roll that over.
If you're moving somewhere cheaper (i.e. I sell my house for $2M in San Francisco and retire in Arizona and buy a place for $800k) I pocket that $1.2M. If I'm just renting forever then I'll have $0 to show for it and STILL have to pay rent.
If you're savvy, maybe you do move every few years if opportunity strikes. I made a nice return on a few condos because I was opportunistic. To me it's less about the equity, more about leveraging the return on your downpayment when opportunity presents itself. Then roll that over into something bigger, rinse and repeat. Easy way to snowball your money but YMMV.
|
my scenario is more like this
we rent now
we are looking to buy, but I don't see that it makes a whole lot of sense to have that downpayment 150k bigger as opposed putting that 150K into a car I will love
my thinking is put the minimum downpayment required to avoid mortgage insurance, 20% in my province, and then enjoy life more with a sweet keeper car
we have no kids and it doesn't look like we'll have any so what's the point of building up all this equity and having all my money sunk in a house
It's become clear to me that I will be happier with a 800k house and 200k in cars then with a 950k house and 50k in cars
