←back to thread

277 points cebert | 10 comments | | HN request time: 1.966s | source | bottom
Show context
PostOnce ◴[] No.44361768[source]
Theoretically, credit should be used for one thing: to make more money. (not less)

However, instead of using it to buy or construct a machine to triple what you can produce in an hour, the average person is using it to delay having to work that hour at all, in exchange for having to work an hour and six minutes sometime later.

At some point, you run out of hours available and the house of cards collapses.

i.e., credit can buy time in the nearly literal sense, you can do an hour's work in half an hour because the money facilitates it, meaning you can now make more money. If instead of investing in work you're spending on play, then you end up with a time deficit.

or, e.g. you can buy 3 franchises in 3 months instead of 3 years (i.e. income from the 1 franchise), trading credit for time to make more money, instead of burning it. It'd have been nice had they taught me this in school.

replies(42): >>44361792 #>>44361861 #>>44361865 #>>44361871 #>>44361931 #>>44361944 #>>44361950 #>>44362065 #>>44362085 #>>44362133 #>>44362148 #>>44362177 #>>44362254 #>>44364104 #>>44364281 #>>44364325 #>>44364438 #>>44364536 #>>44364685 #>>44364877 #>>44365174 #>>44365292 #>>44365599 #>>44365679 #>>44365774 #>>44366064 #>>44366444 #>>44366485 #>>44366511 #>>44366874 #>>44366996 #>>44367040 #>>44367169 #>>44367332 #>>44368257 #>>44368662 #>>44369054 #>>44369100 #>>44369614 #>>44369775 #>>44371322 #>>44371454 #
andruby ◴[] No.44364438[source]
Do you also think that way about buying a house with a mortgage (credit)? I don't.

A mortgage isn't used to make more money. It's used so people can own a house after saving for a few years, rather than waiting until they've saved for a few decades.

replies(8): >>44364462 #>>44364497 #>>44364516 #>>44364583 #>>44364955 #>>44365051 #>>44365194 #>>44366179 #
eadmund ◴[] No.44364516[source]
A mortgage doesn’t make money, but it (can) enable spending less money. If you buy a place such that interest, maintenance, insurance, taxes and the opportunity cost of not being able to easily relocate are less than rent, then you have saved the difference.

It’s also a way to force saving, which is psychologically useful (and thus valuable).

replies(1): >>44365903 #
ta1243 ◴[] No.44365903[source]
If you buy a house for 500k on a 5% mortgage over 25 years when you are 25, and you plan to live until you are 85, you will live there for 60 years.

It will cost you 35k a year for 25 years, or 875k a year

After 25 years you have no more expenses.

If instead you rent it for 20k a year, increasing with 2% inflation each year, by year 25 you're paying 33k a year in rent, and by year 60 you're paying 66k a year.

Over 60 years you pay 2.4m in rent, or 900k in mortgage (you could also then sell that house for 1.6m with a 2% annual inflation).

You'd have to invest the savings and get way higher than inflation returns to break even.

Of course there's maintenance costs of the house too, but that's with rent far cheaper than the mortgage. In reality rent tends to be a similar amount as a mortgage (in the UK it tends to be higher - as people won't rent places out if they aren't covering their mortgage - at the very least the interest part of it). You'll likely find house prices appreciating more than inflation too - just like stock prices do. Rent tends to track income.

Now you could argue that you'll get more by investing in high return growth stocks. And you might be right. In the 80s there was a whole "endownment" mortgage craze where you paid the interest on the mortgage, and then the rest rather than paying down the mortgage capital, instead was invested.

This was a massive scandal as many investments didn't have enough to cover the mortgage amount upon maturity. With a mortgage you know that no matter what happens with inflation, growth, returns, stock crashes etc, you will own one house after X years.

replies(7): >>44366118 #>>44366458 #>>44366515 #>>44366694 #>>44368028 #>>44368378 #>>44368742 #
1. WalterBright ◴[] No.44368378[source]
> It will cost you 35k a year

> If instead you rent it for 20k a year

Some good numbers, but what is missing is the result of investing $35k-$20k=$15k per year. Let's say you earn a %7 real return on $15k/year invested for 60-25=35 years.

Writing a little program:

    import core.stdc.stdio;
    void main() {
        double d = 0;
        foreach (i; 0..35)
            d = (d+15000)*1.07;
        printf("d: $%f\n", d);
    }
Yields $2,218,701

I would think twice about buying real estate as an investment.

Personally, I own my home because I want to use it as I see fit, but I recognize that as an investment it's a lousy one.

replies(3): >>44368438 #>>44370544 #>>44370780 #
2. WalterBright ◴[] No.44368438[source]
somehow, I never learned to use a spreadsheet
3. WalterBright ◴[] No.44370544[source]
25 years ago, I sold my previous house. It recently sold for 4x what I sold it for, a 300% ROI. Was selling it a financial mistake?

Consider that I didn't pay property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and squatter eviction costs for the last 25 years.

Consider that the S&P500 went up 561%.

Buying a house is not a good wealth builder strategy.

4. chasd00 ◴[] No.44370780[source]
Can’t argue with the math but one thing about a mortgage is it takes no effort. Just pay the bill and time does the rest. With stock investment there’s an emotional attachment to every major swing, should you buy or should you sell is never far from your thoughts. Using a home as an investment may not make the most return but it’s easy as long as you can pay the bill.
replies(2): >>44372991 #>>44380343 #
5. WalterBright ◴[] No.44372991[source]
Real estate prices swing around, wax and wane, just like the stock market does. It's just that there is no real estate price ticker.

Investing in the S&P 500 is even less effort. The last time I bought a house, I had to carefully read and sign about 50 pages of legal papers. Buying stocks is just pushing a button.

replies(1): >>44381142 #
6. SirMaster ◴[] No.44380343[source]
Huh? I invest tens of thousands a year into stocks and have never once thought should I buy or sell. I just auto buy weekly, it couldn't be easier and I never think about it at all. They even have funds that automatically re-balance as you approach retirement.

Also you are acting like the housing market can't also crash.

7. 10000truths ◴[] No.44381142{3}[source]
In places like the Bay Area, property values pretty much never go down in price, and the YoY relative increase is on par with that of index funds. Combine that with rental income, and you can very likely beat an index fund. Mortgages offer much more leverage than margin loans, which helps offset the upfront capital cost.
replies(1): >>44381156 #
8. hollerith ◴[] No.44381156{4}[source]
For decades, property values kept going up in Detroit until they didn't.
replies(2): >>44381226 #>>44381331 #
9. bdangubic ◴[] No.44381226{5}[source]
not just Detroit…
10. 10000truths ◴[] No.44381331{5}[source]
The value of real estate in Detroit was tied to the auto industry. When it fell, so did real estate prices. The Bay Area's value does come in large part from the tech industry, but it's also a very important port of entry for trans-Pacific immigration and commerce, and that's a lot less likely to change IMO.

But that's beside the point. Substitute Bay Area with Seattle, Los Angeles, Manhattan, or some other area of your choice. Or, better yet, diversify your portfolio by buying real estate in multiple cities. The same options that are available in the stock investment to tune your risk profile are available in real estate investment as well.