query: Merits of buying apartment houses and renting them

positive: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) have different end of term dates but by less than a month.  Both have summer sessions, but most students do not stay over the summer.  You can rent over the summer, but prices fall by a lot.  Thirty to forty thousand students leave over the summer between the two.  Only ten to twenty thousand remain throughout the year and not all of those are in Oakland (the neighborhood in Pittsburgh where the universities are located).  So many of the landlords in Oakland have the same problem.  Your competitors will cut their rates to try to get some rent for the summer months.   This also means that you have to handle eight, nine, and three month leases rather than year long and certainly not multiyear leases.  You're right that you don't have to buy the latest appliances or the best finishes, but you still have to replace broken windows and doors.  Also, the appliances and plumbing need to mostly work.  The furnace needs to produce heat and distribute it.  If there is mold or mildew, you will have to take care of it.  You can't rely on the students doing so.  So you have to thoroughly clean the premises between tenants.   Students may leave over winter break.  If there are problems, the pipes may freeze and burst, etc.  Since they're not there, they won't let you know when things break.   Students drop out during the term and move out.  You probably won't be able to replace them when that happens.  If you have three people in two bedrooms, two of them may be in a romantic relationship.  Romantic relationships among twenty-year olds end frequently.  Your three people drops back to two.  Your recourse in that case is to evict the remaining tenants and sue for breach of contract.  But if you do that, you may not replace the tenants until a new term starts.  Better might be to sue the one who left and accept the lower rent from the other two.  But you likely won't get the entire rent amount for the remainder of the lease.  Suing an impoverished student is not the road to riches.   Pittsburgh is expected to have a 6.1% increase in house prices which almost all of it is going to be pure profit. I don't know specifically about Pittsburgh, but in the national market, housing prices are about where they were in 2004.  Prices were flat to increasing from 2004 to 2007 and then fell sharply from 2007 to 2009, were flat to decreasing from 2009 to 2012, and have increased the last few years.  Price to rent ratios are as high now as in 2003 and higher than they were the twenty years before that.  Maybe prices do increase.  Or maybe we hit a new 20% decrease.  I would not rely on this for profit.  It's great if you get it, but unreliable.   I wouldn't rely on estimates for middle class homes to apply to what are essentially slum apartments.  A 6% average may be a 15% increase in one place and a 3% decrease in another.  The nice homes with the new appliances and the fancy finishes may get the 15% increase.  The rundown houses in a block where students party past 2 AM may get no increase.   Both the city of Pittsburgh and the county of Allegheny charge property taxes.  Schools and libraries charge separate taxes.  The city provides a worksheet that estimates $2860 in taxes on a $125,000 property.  It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief.  Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you.   You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords.  There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant.  Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting.  Not sure how common that is in student housing.

positive: I’m not an expert on the VISA/US tax or insurance, but you're making enough mistakes in terms of all the associated costs involved in owning and renting houses/apartments that this already looks potentially unwise at this stage of your investment career. Renting cheap properties/to students involves the property constantly being trashed, often being empty and requiring extremely close management (which you either have to pay someone a lot to do, or do yourself and lose other potential earning time. If doing yourself you will also make lots of mistakes in the vetting/managing/marketing process etc at first as this is a complex art in itself).  Costs on this type of rental can often get as high as 25% a year depending exactly how lucky you get even if you do it all yourself, and will typically be in the 5-15% range every year once everything you have to constantly maintain, replace and redecorate is totalled up. That's all pre what you could be earning in a job etc, so if you could earn a decent clip elsewhere in the same time also have to deduct that lost potential. Send it all to third parties (so all upkeep by hired contractors, all renting by an agency) you will be lucky to even break even off ~15k a year per property rents to students. You’re not seeming to price in any transaction costs, which usually run at ~5% a time for both entrance and exit. Thats between half and one years rent gone from the ten per property on these numbers. Sell before ten is up its even more. On point three, rounding projections in house price rises to one decimal place is total gibberish – no one who actually has experience investing their own money well ever makes or relies on claims like this. No idea on Pittsburgh market but sound projections of likely asset changes is always a ranged and imprecise figure that cannot (and shouldn’t) be counted on for much. Even if it was, it’s also completely unattainable in property because you have to spend so much money on upkeep: post costs and changes in size/standard, house values generally roughly track inflation. Have a look at this chart and play around with some reasonable yearly upkeep numbers and you will see what I mean. Renting property is an absolute graveyard for inexperienced investors and if you don't know the stuff above already (and it's less than 10% of what you need to know to do this profitably vs other uses of your time), you will nearly always be better off investing the money in more passive investments like diversified bonds, REITs and Stock.

positive: I am not going to argue the merits of investing in real estate (I am a fan I think it is a great idea when done right).  I will assume you have done your due diligence and your numbers are correct, so let's go through your questions point by point. What would be the type of taxes I should expect?  NONE. You are a real estate investor and the US government loves you. Everything is tax deductible and odds are your investment properties will actually manage to shelter some of your W2(day job) income and you will pay less taxes on that too.  Obviously I am exaggerating slightly find a CPA (certified public accountant) that is familiar with real estate, but here are a few examples. I am not a tax professional but hopefully this gives you an idea of what sort of tax benifits you can expect.   How is Insurance cost calculated?  Best advice I have call a few insurance firms and ask them.  You will need landlord insurance make sure you are covered if a tenant gets hurt or burns down your property. You can expect to pay 15%-20% more for landlord insurance than regular insurance (100$/month is not a bad number to just plug in when running numbers its probably high).  Also your lease should require tenants to have renters insurance to help protect you. Have a liability conversation with a lawyer and think about LLCs.   How is the house price increase going to act as another source of income?  Appreciation can be another source of income but it is not really that useful in your scenario.  It is not liquid you will not realize it until you sell the property and then you have to pay capital gains and depreciation recapture on it.  There are methods to get access to the gains on the property without paying taxes.  This is done by leveraging the property, you get the equity but it is not counted as capital gains since you have to pay it back a mortgage or home equity lines of credit (HELOC) are examples of this.  I am not recommending these just making sure you are aware of your options. Please let me know if I am calculating anything wrong but my projection for one year is about $8.4k per house (assuming no maintenance is needed) I would say you estimated profit is on the high side.  Not being involved in your market it will be a wild guess but I would expect you to realize cash-flow per house per year of closer to $7,000.  Maybe even lower given your inexperience.  Some Costs you need to remember to account for: Taxes, Insurance, Vacancy, Repairs, CapEx, Property Management, Utilities, Lawn Care, Snow Removal, HOA Fees. All-in-all expect 50% or your rental income to be spent on the property.  If you do well you can be pleasantly surprised.

positive: Insurance - get estimate from an insurance agent who works with policies for commercial real estate.  See comments below regarding incorporation. Taxes - if this was basic income for a simple LLC, estimating 25-40% and adjusting over time might work.  Rental property is a whole different prospect.  Financial experts who specialize in rental properties would be a good source of advice, and worth the cost.  See below regarding incorporating. Real estate appreciation - not something you can count on for developed property.  Appreciation used to be almost guaranteed to at least keep up with inflation.  Now property values are not even guaranteed to go up.  Never have been but the general rule was improved real estate in good repair appreciated in price.  Even if property values increase over time, rental properties depreciate.  In fact, for rental properties, you can claim a certain rate of depreciation over time as an expense on taxes.  This depreciation could mean selling for less than you paid for the property after a number of years, and owing capital gains taxes, since you would owe the difference between the depreciated value and the sale price. Related to taxes are local codes.  Some areas require you to have a property management license to handle buildings with more than a certain number of units. If you are going to own rental properties, you should protect your private financial life by incorporating.  Form a company.  The company will own the property and hire any maintenance people or property managers or security staff or any similar employment activities.  The company takes out the insurance and pays taxes.  The company can pay you a salary.  So, bottom line, you can have the company pay all the expenses and take all the risks.  Then, assuming there's any money left after expenses, the company can pay you a manager's salary.  That way if the worst happens and a tenant breaks their hip in the shower and sues you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and wins, the company folds and you walk away.  You might even consider two companies.  One to own the property and lease it to a property management company.  The property management company can then go bankrupt in case of some sort of liability issue, in which case you still keep the property, form a new management company, repaint and rename the property and move on. TL;DR:  Get insurance advice from insurance agent before you buy.  Same for taxes from an accountant.  Get trained as a property manager if your local codes require it (might be a good idea anyway).  Incorporate and have the company take all the risks.

positive: Hitting the 25% marginal rate does not mean all of your earnings are taxed at 25%, only those that exceed the top of the 15% bracket. You can deduct any expenses for upgrading or repairing your apartments, those are subtracted from the earnings before tax is calculated as income, so you will probably stay in a lower marginal rate. Property tax will hit you annually, and capital gains tax will hit you when you sell them at the end. If you already have experience with this business in your home country, then this sounds like a good option for you. The only caution that I would give you is to find an accountant to help you with your taxes and pay for a consultation before you get started so that you know what to track that will help him/her minimize your tax bill.

negative: You say  My work is steady; even if I lost my job it'd be easy to get another. Location has been static for a few years now, but I'm not sure that'll extrapolate to the future; I'm lazy, so I don't want to move, but for a significantly better job opportunity I wouldn't mind.   The general rule of thumb is that you'll come out ahead if you buy a house (with a mortgage) and live there for five years.  What you lose in interest, you make up in rent.  And living there for five years, you make back your closing costs in equity.  If you're there less than five years though, you don't make back the closing costs.  You'd have been better off renting.   Historically (up to about twenty years ago), your mortgage payment and rent payment for the same basic property would be about the same.  I.e. if your current landlord sold you what you are renting, your mortgage payment would be roughly the same as your rent.  Maybe a little lower or a little higher but about the same.  More recently, it hasn't been strange to see a divergence in those.  Now it is not uncommon for a mortgage payment to be 50% higher than rent on the same property.   This has some consequences.  First, your $1000 rent probably won't stretch as far as a $1000 mortgage payment.  So you'll be buying something that you'd only pay $650 or $700 rent.  Second, if you move and can't sell immediately, you'll get less in rent than you'd pay in mortgage.  Rather than contributing to your income, the property will require subsidy just to maintain the mortgage.  And in the early years of the mortgage, this means that you're paying all of the principal (equity) and some of the interest.   Buying a duplex makes this worse.  You have your side and their side.  You can substitute your $1000 rent for half of the mortgage payment.  Meanwhile, they are paying $700 in rent.  You have to subsidize the mortgage by $300.  Plus, you are talking about hiring a property management company to do things like lawn maintenance.  There goes another $100 a month.  So you are subsidizing the mortgage by $400.   I don't know real estate prices in Utah, but a quick search finds a median house price over $200,000.  So it seems unlikely that you are buying new construction with new appliances.  More likely you are buying an existing duplex with existing appliances.  What happens when they fail?  The renter doesn't pay for that.  The property management company doesn't pay for that (although they'll likely arrange for it to happen).  You pay for it.   Also, it often takes a bit of time to clean up the apartment after one tenant leaves before the new tenant starts paying rent.  That's a dead weight loss.  If this happens during a local recession, you could be carrying the mortgage on a property with no offsetting rental income for months.   There are some countervailing forces.  For example, if house prices in your area are increasing, the rent will increase with them (not necessarily at the same pace).  But your mortgage payment stays the same.  So eventually the rent may catch up with the mortgage payment.  If you wait long enough in a strong enough market, the rent on the other half of the duplex may cover the entire mortgage payment.   If you currently have an urban apartment within walking distance of work and switch to a suburban apartment with a commute, you have a better chance of finding a duplex where the entire mortgage payment is only the $1000 that you pay in rent.  Your half of the duplex won't be as nice as your apartment is, and you'll have a half hour or hour long commute every morning (and the same to get home in the evening).  But on strictly fiscal terms you'll be doing about as well.  Plus you have the income from the other half.  So even if your mortgage payment is more than your rent payment, you can still break even if the rent covers it.   Consider a $1400 mortgage and $400 in rent from the other half (after property management fees).  So long as nothing goes wrong, you break even.  Perhaps the agreement is that your parents take care of things going wrong (broken appliances, troublesome tenants, time between tenants).  Or perhaps you drain your emergency fund and adjust your 401(k) payment down to the minimum when that happens.  Once your emergency fund is replenished, restore the 401(k).   If you're willing to live in what's essentially a $500 apartment, you can do better this way.  Of course, you can also do better by living in a $500 apartment and banking the other $500 that you spend on rent.  Plus you now have the expenses of a commute and five hours less free time a week.   You describe yourself as essentially living paycheck to paycheck.  You have adequate savings but no building excess.  Whatever you get paid, you immediately turn around and spend.  Your parents may view you as profligate.  Your apartment is nicer than their early apartments were.  You go out more often.  You're not putting anything aside for later (except retirement).   It didn't use to be at all strange for people to move out of the city because they needed more space.  For the same rent they were paying in the city, they could buy a house in the suburbs.  Then they'd build up equity.  So long as they stayed in roughly the same work location, they didn't need to move until they were ready to upgrade their house.   The duplex plan leads to one of two things.  Either you sell the duplex and use the equity to buy a nicer regular house, or you move out of the duplex and rent your half.  Now you have a rental property providing income.  And if you saved enough for a down payment, you can still buy a regular house.   From your parents' perspective, encouraging you to buy a duplex may be the equivalent of asking you to cut back on spending.  Rather than reducing your 401(k) deposits, they may be envisioning you trading in your car for a cheaper one and trading in your nice but expensive apartment for something more reasonable in a cheaper neighborhood.  Rather than working with a property management company, you'll be out doing yardwork rather than cavorting with your friends.  And maybe the new place would have more space to share when you meet someone--you aren't going to provide many grandkids alone.   If you get a mortgage on a duplex, you are responsible for paying the mortgage.  You are responsible even if something happens to the house.  For example, if a fire burns it down or a tornado takes it away.  Or you just find that the house isn't solid enough to support that party where all of your friends are jumping up and down to the latest pop sensation.  So beyond losing whatever you invest in the property, you may also lose what you borrowed.   Now consider what happens if you invest the same amount of money in General Motors as in the house.  Let's call that $10,000 and give the house a value of $200,000.  With General Motors, even if they go bankrupt tomorrow, you're only out $10,000.  With the house, you're out $200,000.  Admittedly it's much hard to lose the entire $200,000 value of the house.  But even if the house loses $80,000 in value, you are still $70,000 in the hole.   You don't need a disaster for the house to lose $80,000 in value.  That's pretty much what happened in the 2006-2010 period.  People were losing all of what they invested in houses plus having to declare bankruptcy to get out of the excess debt.  Of course, if they had been able to hold on until 2015 markets mostly recovered.  But if you lost your job in 2008, they wouldn't let you not make mortgage payments until you got a new one in 2012.   When you declare bankruptcy, you don't just lose the house.  You also lose all your emergency savings and may lose some of your belongings.   There are some pretty prosaic disasters too.  For example, you and your tenant both go away for a weekend.  It rains heavily and your roof starts to leak due to weak maintenance (so not covered by insurance).  The house floods, destroying all the electronics and damaging various other things.  Bad enough if it's just you, but you're also responsible for the tenant's belongings.  They sue you for $20,000 and they move out.  So no rent and big expenses.  To get the house livable again is going to take $160,000.  Plus you have a $190,000 mortgage on a property that is only worth about $40,000.  That's at the extreme end.

negative: Of course there's nobody selling houses because everybody and their mother is renting them out and using Airbnb to make every room or floor into another source of income. And when large corporations are doing the same, nobody is selling, then who is buying? Well whoever can afford it as prices go up and as urban areas grow. Meanwhile interest rates are high and possibly going higher making it difficult for anybody to get in without large amounts of cash. Who will have this cash? People who make money on their current real estate, who are currently renting them out, and want to buy more to rent out.

negative: The simplest way to handle this is for you to rent the apartment and sublet to the girlfriend and friend.  I'd split the utilities evenly, one-third from each.  The reason for this is that each of you contribute evenly to generating the utility bills.  It's not like your income makes the water cost more for you.   Utilities are driven by usage.  Dividing them other than equally is likely to lead to more problems than it solves.  Also, it seems unlikely that a different apartment would use significantly different water, electricity, or internet.  Those are driven by the appliances rather than the size or location of the apartment.  Only pay more for the utilities if you want something that they don't.  For example, maybe you want HBO, etc.  It would be reasonable for you to pay the entire premium if that's a luxury that they simply wouldn't buy.   I'd also divide the groceries evenly if you share and share alike.  If you eat separate meals, you can buy separate groceries.   If the rent can't be split evenly but you could afford it alone, then you can just sign up for it.  If you break up with the girlfriend and/or the friend moves out, you're still fine.  You have your fancy apartment and can afford it.   The bigger problem comes if you can't afford the apartment without both the girlfriend and friend contributing.  If so, you should probably avoid this situation.  It's fragile.  Any person leaving would put you in a financially untenable position.  You can look for a new tenant to replace your friend, but you can't exactly rely on getting a new move-in girlfriend on demand.   Neither the girlfriend nor the friend can afford to be on the main lease.  In case of emergency or tragedy, they couldn't replace you as a tenant.  That's why they should sublet.  Then their obligation is to you, not to the landlord.   How much apartment would the girlfriend and friend get if you weren't involved?  What rents would they pay?  That's probably how much rent they should pay for this apartment.  You want a better apartment (or a better location)?  That's on you.   You should only do this if you want to do it.  If you want to share apartments with the girlfriend and friend, then do so.  Work out something equitable.  If you plan on moving in together to reduce your costs, then you don't sound like you are compatible.  Obviously there are reasons to move in with the girlfriend aside from costs.  Why can't the friend get his or her own place?  The added rent probably won't do more than pay for the added room (you could get a one bedroom without the friend).   That points to an alternative way of calculating the friend's contribution:  the difference between a two bedroom and a one bedroom apartment.  That's the additional cost of the bigger apartment.  If the friend can't afford that, then this might not be a good idea.   Make sure that you can afford the apartment if one or both of the friend and girlfriend move out.  You can eventually replace the friend as the tenant but don't rely on doing the same with the girlfriend.  Share utilities evenly.  Possibly groceries too.  The friend should pay at least the added cost of the additional bedroom.  Don't expect either to pay more in the new apartment than they would pay without you.  You should be the only one on the main lease; sublet to them.

negative: Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting.  Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house.

negative: Buying a house may save you money compared with renting, depending on the area and specifics of the transaction (including the purchase price, interest rates, comparable rent, etc.). In addition, buying a house may provide you with intangibles that fit your lifestyle goals (permanence in a community, ability to renovate, pride of ownership, etc.). These factors have been discussed in other answers here and in other questions. However there is one other way I think potential home buyers should consider the financial impact of home ownership: Buying a house provides you with a natural 'hedge' against possible future changes in your cost of living. Assume the following: If these two items are true, then buying a home allows you to guarantee today that your monthly living expenses will be mostly* fixed, as long as you live in that community. In 2 years, if there is an explosion of new residents in your community and housing costs skyrocket - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment [or if you paid cash, the lack of mortgage payment] is fixed. In 3 years, if there are 20 new apartment buildings built beside you and housing costs plummet - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment is fixed. If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility.

negative: So you think people should be *forced* to serve coffee, rent apartments, issue credit cards, or sell stuff to neo-nazis?  I think disenfranchising a neo-nazi is more likely to help change their mind than trying to silence them, or convict them of thought crimes.

negative: ">Wrong. Between Ford (1914) and FDR's Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) the middle class formed. Unions forming from textile plants pushed for what became the FLSA.   That's more the working class, but we're just splitting hairs now.  >The right has been conned into wanting to dismantle all of that even though the only people who would benefit are the top 1%.  A free market wouldn't stop unions, in fact it would give them more freedom.  >This is why the rest of us call you dupes or dummies.  No, you do that because you're a condescending asshole.  >A ""slow down"" is no shortage. You said it generally as well. There's no overall housing shortage.  Actually the example I gave you showed that allowing the construction of new apartments reduced rent increases as more demand is met. As far as actual vacant houses go, Seattle is actively stopping people from living in them, and giving permits to destroy them. You could solve the homeless problem in Seattle by getting govt out of the way."

negative: The Central Banks sets various rate for lending to Banks and Paying interest to Banks on excess funds. Apart from these the Central Banks also sets various other ratios that either create more liquidity or remove liquidity from Market.  The CPI is just one input to the Central Bank to determine rate, is not the only deciding criteria. The CPI does not take into account the house price or the cost of renting in the basket of goods.  One of the reasons could be that CPI contains basic essentials and also the fact that it should be easily mesurable over the period of time. For example Retail Price of a particular item is easily mesurable. The rent is not easily mesurable.

negative: "The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level ""paying rent"" should be avoided.  I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it.  A quote from the article -  annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too   high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are   reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a ""4.16"" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a ""20"", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision.  Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years). And the ratio of income to mortgage one can afford is tied to the current rate. The $60K couple, at 4%, can afford just over a $260K mortgage, but at 6%, $208K, and 8%, $170K. The struggle isn't with the payment, but the downpayment.   The analysis isn't too different for a purchase to invest. If the rent exceeds 1% of the home price, an investor should be able to turn a profit after expenses."

negative: Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers.  Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?).  This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance.   My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently.  There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord.  Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release.

negative: Ok. So mum and dad is the government and the child is the citizen? Or is it that mum and dad is the past and the child is the actual government?  Our problem is that we managed our real estate so well that we never got a recession on it since the 1990s.   That and immigrants only wants to live in the VA area or GTA.   The rest of the country is fine. I live in Montreal and you can rent a nice apartment for less then 1k a month 20 mins from downtown and a house is still 400-600k.

negative: "I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property.  This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate.  Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting.  But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science.  Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so).  It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them.   Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work.  With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss).  With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment.  You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions).  Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things.  As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point.  If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in.  So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for.  This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future?  There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord).  If the property is in an ""up-and-coming"" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund.  If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for).  Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation."

negative: "Note: I am making a USA-assumption here; keep in mind this answer doesn't necessarily apply to all countries (or even states in the USA).  You asked two questions: I'm looking to buy a property. I do not want to take a risk on this   property. Its sole purpose is to provide me with a place to live. How   would I go about hedging against increasing interest rates, to counter   the increasing mortgage costs? To counter increasing interest rates, obtaining a fixed interest rate on a mortgage is the answer, if that's available.  As far as costs for a mortgage, that depends, as mortgages are tied to the value of the property/home.  If you want a place to live, a piece of property, and want to hedge against possible rising interest rates, a fixed mortgage would work for these goals. Ideally I'd like to not lose money on my property, seeing as I will be   borrowing 95% of the property's value. So, I'd like to hedge against   interest rates and falling property prices in order to have a risk   neutral position on my property. Now we have a different issue.  For instance, if someone had opened a fixed mortgage on a home for $500,000, and the housing value plummeted 50% (or more), the person may still have a fixed interest rate protecting the person from higher rates, but that doesn't protect the property value.  In addition to that, if the person needed to move for a job, that person would face a difficult choice: move and sell at a loss, or move and rent and face some complications. Renting is generally a good idea for people who (1) have not determined if they'll be in an area for more than 5-10 years, (2) want the flexibility to move if their living costs rises (which may be an issue if they lose wages), (3) don't want to pay property taxes (varies by state), homeowner's insurance, or maintenance costs, (4) enjoy regular negotiation (something which renters can do before re-signing a lease or looking for a new place to live).  Again, other conditions can apply to people who favor renting, such as someone might enjoy living in one room out of a house rather than a full apartment or a person who likes a ""change of scenes"" and moves from one apartment to another for a fresh perspective, but these are smaller exceptions. But with renting, you have nothing to re-sell and no financial asset so far as a property is concerned (thus why some real estate agents refer to it as ""throwing away money"" which isn't necessarily true, but one should be aware that the money they invest in renting doesn't go into an asset that can be re-sold)."

negative: Yeah, the party isn't going to last!...  People are going to stop eating and buying useless shit.  They aren't going to live in houses and apartments, instead choosing to live off the land in mud-huts.  Women aren't going to wear jewelry or get their hair done or buy fancy shoes any more.  Just as men will stop buying fast cars and electronics...

negative: "Sure, it's irresponsible for an executor to take actions which endanger the estate.  But what about passivity or inaction?  Put it another way.  Is it the obligation of the executor to avoid making revenue for the estate?  Think about it - what a silly idea!   Consider a 12-unit apartment building full of rent paying tenants.  A tenant gives notice and leaves.  So do 4 more.  With only 7/12 tenants, the building stops being a revenue center and becomes a massive money pit.  Is that acceptable?  Heck no!  Realistically this will be managed by a property management company, and of course they'll seek new tenants, not stopping merely because the owner died.  This situation is not different; the same fiscal logic applies.  The counter-argument is usually along the lines of ""stuff might happen if you rent it out""... true. But the stuff that happens to abandoned houses is much worse, and much more likely: squatters, teen ""urban explorers"", pot growers, copper thieves, winter pipe freeze flooding and wrecking interiors, etc.  Don't take my word on it -- ask your insurer for the cost of insuring an abandoned house vs. a rented one.  Renting brings a chunk of cash that comes in from tenants - $12,000/year on a $1000/mo. rental. And that will barely pay the bills if you have a young mortgage on a freshly purchased house at recent market rates.  But on an old mortgage, renting is like printing money.  That money propagates first to the estate (presumably it is holding back a ""fix the roof"" emergency fund), and then to the beneficiaries.  It means getting annual checks from the estate, instead of constantly being dunned for another repair.  But I don't care about making revenue (outside of putting back a kitty to replace the roof).  Even if it was net zero, it means the maintenance is being done.  This being the point.  It is keeping the house in good repair, occupied, insured, and professionally managed -- fit and ready for the bequest's purpose: occupancy of an aunt.  What's the alternative?  Move an aunt into a house that's been 10 years abandoned?  Realistically the heirs are going to get tired/bored of maintaining the place at a total cash loss, maintenance will slip, and you'll be moving them into a neglected house with some serious issues.  That betrays the bequest, and it's not fair to the aunts. Rental is a very responsible thing to do.  The executor shouldn't fail to do it merely out of passivity.  If you decide not to do it, there needs to be a viable alternative to funding the home's decent upkeep.  (I don't think there is one).  Excluding a revenue-producing asset from the economy is an expensive thing to do."

negative: You would have to find someone in the other state who wanted to swap.  This is conceivable but difficult if you want the houses to be the same value.  How do you find the one person who lives in the right place now and wants to move to the right area?   The normal way this situation is handled is to simply put your house on the market.  At the same time, you find a new house in the new location.  You arrange for a new mortgage for the new house and make purchase contingent on selling the old house.  Your buyer pays off your mortgage and gives you a bit left over that you use as a downpayment on the new house.   Note that you take a loss on closing costs when you do this.  This is why if you are in the position where you move frequently, you may be better off renting.   Sometimes an employer will help with this, paying for a long term hotel or short term rental.  This can give you more room to sell and buy the houses.   If you have to move right now, immediately, not in a few months when your housing situation is fixed, consider double renting.  You rent out your mortgaged house to someone and pay rent on a new place.  You may put some of your stuff in storage until you get into your permanent place.   The downside is that it can be harder to sell a house with a tenant until you are close to the end of the lease.  And of course, you are probably not in the best position to get or pay good rent.  Your situation restricts your options.  You might get stuck in this situation for a year so as to get the time that you need to line up a buyer.   Of course, you may get lucky and find someone who wants your old house as an investment property.  Such a person won't be bothered by a tenant.  But they usually want a good price.  After all, they want to make money off it.   There are those operations that advertise that they buy ugly houses.  They want a good deal.  You'll probably take a bath.  But they can buy quickly, so you can move on quickly.  No waiting until they find a buyer.   And I'm not saying that you can't do a swap like you want.  I'm just saying that you may find it difficult to find a swapping partner.  Perhaps an investment person would be up for it.  They take your house in trade for their house, letting you stay in their house until they can fix up your old house and either rent it or sell it.  The problem is that it may be hard to find such an investor who can handle a house where you are and has a house where you need to be.   I don't have a good suggestion for finding a swapping partner other than calling a lot of realtors and asking for suggestions.  Maybe a bit of online checking for properties where the owner's business is managing the sale.