Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonturbo
Ahhh this thread marches on, totally polarizing.
Ultimately home ownership/investment is binary, you're either in or out, red or black.
From a perspective of risk management you have people willing to take on no risk (renters) and people will to take on massive risk (Buyers with very little equity in a very expensive market where obtaining your mortgage would be impossible if interest rates weren't so low). Perhaps if housing (for 90+% of the population) didn't make up the entirety of their net worth, home owners could actually consider and manage the risks associated with ownership/investment. Perhaps if this opportunity existed you would see a more balanced market with more reasonable appreciation/depreciation.
So long as you understand that you're not managing or mitigating risk being a highly leveraged home owner in an extremely expensive market, then at least you're being honest with yourself that you're essentially gambling on real estate. For this reason, and this reason alone I remain a renter, it's the only way I can remain diversified and manage financial risk.
|
renting have no risk is an illusion. tell that to the many people around Metrotown area who have been renting for 20+ years and now have to move because of high rises going up. i feel bad for those people but at the same time people do have to take some responsibilities themselves for getting too complacent.
everyone considers the downside risk but not the upside risk. Last I checked getting a mortgage from the big banks is not a walk in the park, so just because you want to buy that million dollar home it doesn't mean you can. in this regard canada is exactly the opposite of US pre-2008.
ultimately, renting only works for people who are new to city or have occupation requiring them to move all the time. for the rest of us who don't watch the S&P500 on a daily basis, it just doesn't work.