October 22, 2007

Stay Put? or Sell and Rent?

fist Stay Put? or Sell and Rent?There was an interesting article in Saturday’s paper in the Home & Garden section titled “Flying the Coop—to Become Renters,” by Susan Fornoff. I read this with interest, as I have toyed with the idea of doing just the same thing, selling our home and renting. So I thought I would investigate to see what options we had and how this would translate financially. Obviously there are a lot of variables, Ms. Fornoff actually downsized after selling her home, which helped them save money on rent, whereas I would need a comparable house at this point. The type of investment you would put your equity into can yield varying amounts, which is another variable. And tax consequences would vary based on your income and other factors. But I did a quick down and dirty to see what I could come up with.

First, we own in a very desirable neighborhood of our town in an 1800 square foot home with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths. In addition to the living room and kitchen there is a room off the kitchen, which may have been intended as a dining room, but which was used as a family room by the previous owners and which now houses my home office (I can cook and work at the same time). We currently have one child at home and the spare bedroom is furnished for guests, which we have several times per month. So at present I would need to have a 3-bedroom home plus office space. There were no homes in our area at all to rent on Craig’s List, going back to Sept 7. There were only two homes that were nearby or in a similar neighborhood that had 3-4 bedrooms. One for $2800 and one for $2850. Nearby is a town with neighborhoods comparable and I found an older 3/1 with separate studio (for my office) that was going for $2900, a 4BR for $3250, and another 3BR for $3500. So I took an average of about $3000 for rent per month, plus the cost of renters insurance of $400/year.

Our mortgage at the moment hovers around $357,000, and our payment including taxes and insurance is just shy of $2100 per month. The home is worth in the neighborhood of $1,000,000, given recent sales in the area. If we sold we would have about $575,000 to invest. Investing at 5% interest would garner about $28,750 per year, which would be taxable. We could put some in IRAs, which would help offset some of the taxes. On the flip side, we have owned the home for 12 years, through good times and bad, and our increase in the value of our home translates to $685,000, or roughly $57,000 per year. Granted, there is upkeep on a home. We have had to replace our heater, hot water heater, refrigerator. We have painted the whole exterior and interior, recarpeted, new windows and gutters. Average $5-10,000/year.

I assume that the tax break that homeowners get would offset any IRA investments, so I did not consider that (not to mention it would have taken me several more hours of calculations). This is what I came up with:

Current home costs: $25200 (mtg/ins/tax) + $10,000 (upkeep) – $57,000 (increase in equity) = +$21,800

Rental home costs: $36,000 (rent) + $400 (ins) – $28,700 (investment) = -$7700

Using my simplistic method, I come out $21,800 ahead staying where I am and am in the red $7,700 by renting. And that does not even take into consideration the capital gains consequences of selling our home, which could be substantial. I certainly may have left something out (if so, please feel free to comment below), but it doesn’t sound like renting would be in my best interests at this point. What about you?


  • Good point, Broker4you. My mortgage payments are pretty low and since my kids have jut finished college, no need to dig into the equity for any significant amount. My two grandmothers are good examples of home ownership, since both lived on SS and savings. One did not own her own home and struggled with rent. Each year the rent went up more than her SS check and she had to dip more into her savings. My other grandmother owned her home free and clear, and even if something big had come up, like the need for a new roof, the equity line or loan payment would have been much less than rent. You gotta think long term when owning a home and you need to consider it more than just an investment.
  • Broker4you
    Anyone think of how to pay the rent 15 years from now when one retires? Susan would already own her home free and clear with no mortgage payments (assuming she does not start pulling out $$ and spending on foolish stuff!). Also, keep in mind how much rents will be 15 years from now......!
  • Dinamine
    Is there anyonw who is projecting the rate off appreciation going foward (in a high-cost area like berkeley or where I live- fairfield, CT?)

    I am doing these calculations myself, and it looks as if I would make much more interest on my invested equity (and paying much lower rent than mortgage payments, in my case) for the next three years, if I calculate the rate of appreciation at 2%. But that rate is a big question. Right now the rate of appreciation for this year is -4%, so I figure even if it goes back up and then some in three years, it wouldn't be more than 2% a year, but I don't really know if that is an accurate assessment or not. I know the rate was atleast 8% a year in my area for years until 2006. But we're in for a slowdown, right? So confusing!
  • sunk_gains&costs
    I'll the third person to try explain that you are confusing the question "did I make a good decison to buy in 1995?", "vs should I sell and rent now"

    To reference your replay above, if your house loses 100K and then stays flat for 10 years, then your result is -10K per year for a forward looking analyis, NOT the average of teh gains you already have made over the last 12 years.

    Given that you would want to do an analysis for a decision today, you need to figure out what you think your house value will do in the future. Its worth a million now, whatever you paid for it in 1995 is irrelevant to the analysis - other than for tax reasons or if you think its a predictor of future events. But given that you bought at the trough of the last cycle, and we are still close to the peak of this cycle, i doubt the next 12 years will be as kind. Its speculation tho, because the future is unknown.

    AS the person above noted, it couldgrow at 5% or 2% going forward, or even decline, Who knows?
  • Even if I lose 100,000 and my equity drops to $585,000 and the value of the home stays at $900,000 for the next 8 years (meaning I will have 20 years of residency),I would still have an average equity per year of $29,250--more than if I rented, without my rent even going up. And yes, it would be devastating to lose another $100 grand, as we already have in the last 18 months, but its not terribly different than the stock market. I have not lost my initial investment, only some of my gains. And the money was never real to me anyway. My in-laws often asked us why we chose to stay in California, rather than move somewhere cheaper. Equity is the answer. We have made $685,000 in 12 years, while my sister-in-law has only made about $200,000 in 14 years. not to mention we have supremely better weather here than in Colorado.
  • Red
    Regarding equity increase, that was then and this is now. There are many areas that are taking a huge drop in value across the country already. What happens to your Rent/Buy if the value drops 10% this year? You willing to lose $100,000? The last time values got this out of whack - 1989 - it took about 7 years for home prices to pass the peak again. (I bought in 1987...)
    The financial risk of owning your home is substantial and should be accounted for in any evaluation. You have done very well in the last twelve years, but I would strongly predict that the values will do poorly for the next few years at least.
    There are lots of excellent reasons to keep your house - I'm not selling mine - but your economic argument isn't one of them right now.
    Check out http://housing-watch.com/home....
    if you want to see whats happening.
  • The woman that wrote the article actually sold her home and felt that renting was a better option, given that she invested her equity. I wanted to see if would be better for me as a homeowner to do the same.
  • renter
    What is the question that you are trying to address with your column - is it better to buy or rent NOW, or back when you bought your house?

    Past appreciation really doesn't matter for a decision to be made today, so 2% or 5% is a matter of opinion, and both are numbers out of the hat.

    So it is a clearly a judgment call based on what you expect the rate of appreciation (and rate of rent increase) to be. It is not a clear-cut decision based purely on hard numbers.
  • Susan Brady
    Why would I reduce it to 2% a year, when in reality it has been higher? I am not pulling the number out of my hat here, I am using absolutes. Even if the value of our home does not go up for the next ten years, it would still average out to $31,136 a year. In fact, if we lived here for a total of 30 years and the price of my home never ever went up, we would still average $22,833/year. Better than that rental - and my mortgage wouldn't get raised every year like my rent. Right?
  • renter
    The biggest variable in your calculation is obviously the equity appreciation. Reduce that to $20K (2% appreciation/year), and your numbers are about equal between renting and buying.
  • Susan Brady
    Thanks for the comments Rick. I take it you are still looking and haven't found anything?
  • Rick
    There are a couple of other factors that don't always come into play in these analyses. First, your house payments are fixed but your rent payments will keep rising year after year. Next, the rent-vs-buy comparison tends to apply only to certain types of homes, namely smaller ones in areas near townhouses/condos. It's pretty hard to say "well, I can buy a 3,000 ft 5 bedroom house in Mt. Carmel or I can just rent a very similar house." That's because most owners don't rent those kinds of houses out. So, if you have a family of a couple of kids, it's very hard to find a rental that compares to the size house you can buy.

    Which leads us to the final one: If you rent, you can be booted out each year when your lease is up. Maybe this is acceptable when it's just you and significant other, but if you have a couple of kids and a dog, this is a disaster. "Hey kids, I know it's finals time and you need to study, but our lease is up and so we are moving into a motel this month while we find another house!"

    The common response is that landlords would love to have a stable family in the rental unit for years but this is false. Landlords prefer to bring in new tenants every 2-3 years to bring the rent up to market value, clean up the place, etc.

    I really think that the pro-renter crowd just doesn't take the last part seriously. If you have kids you don't want to be looking around every year or two. I have a couple of friends who are vocally pro-rent (one of them regularly writes letters to the Chronicle about how smart he is to rent), and I notice that not one of them has kids.
blog comments powered by Disqus
close