MW: IS buying cheaper than renting?

geneer

Let the adhominem frothing begin!

<H1>Is buying a property really cheaper than renting? Don’t be so sure

Sep 28, 2011, 02:17
Posted byMerryn Somerset Webb



Share with
friends:

• 
  
• [URL="javascript:void(0);"]inShare[/URL]1
• 7
• Email

Comments (12)
Two weeks ago a small building in Wincanton went to auction. It cost its buyer £186,000 ten years ago. At the peak of the bubble, several agents valued it at £300,000 plus.
It had been on the market for two years. Offers had been made at prices ranging from £200,000 to £250,000. All had been accepted. None had made it to exchange: none of the would-be buyers had managed to actually come up with the cash.
At auction it fetched £190,000 – and only after a very significant effort from the auctioneer to get it to its reserve. That’s a peak-to-sale-price drop of 37%.

I popped this nugget of information up on Twitter (I’m @merrynsw) to show those who think that house prices have dropped 10% or so at most and have now stabilised, that they did not and have not.
One of the Twitter replies said that this is not the case. He would, he said, “hang his hat” on the sale I mention having been something to do with either mortgage fraud or a repossession. It wasn’t. And not only was it not, but nor were many of the others there.
The fact is that what is really happening in the lower part of the market is being covered up by the low volumes and high quality of conventional sales. Pick an area of the country and follow the sales in it on PrimeLocation.com or some such for a while. You will see that the occasional perfect house comes up. If it is on at a reasonable price it sells fast. Anything else does not – most sellers aren’t desperate enough to cut their prices to levels where ordinary buyers will buy.
So the only place that you are seeing clearing prices is at auction – where desperate sellers meet savvy cashed-up bargain hunters. And there, if the price you get is 40% below the price you might have got in 2007, you go away thinking you got pretty lucky.
That’s a house price crash – so much so it may even be that whoever bought the Wincanton flats has got himself a bargain.
table.ecoind { border-collapse:collapse; border: none; font: 0.928em/1.23em verdana, arial, sans-serif; }tr.ecoind { border-collapse:collapse; border: none; background: #fff; }td.ecoind { border-collapse:collapse; border: none; padding: 5px 2px; text-align: center; font: 0.75em verdana, arial, sans-serif; }

Lead indicators for Britain's economy

Gold/silver ratio:
A warning for the marketsWhere to next for
UK house prices?Is Britain's inflation
about to take off?

However, the key point for the rest of us to take from this is that the wider market very often follows auction prices down. That’s something that ‘generation rent’ might want to bear in mind when they are told that they should buy as soon as possible, given that, in most UK cities, buying is now "cheaper than renting" - according to Zoopla, that's the case in 45 out of 50 cities in the UK.
Capital Economics have had a good look at this and I think pretty much debunked the idea that buying is a better idea than renting for would-be first-time buyers (FTBs) at the moment. They've used the example of someone with a 20% deposit looking at a £140,000 house, and assumed buying costs of £2,450. So the upfront capital needed is £30,450 (£28,000 of that is the deposit).
They assume a typical FTB mortgage of 3.29%, rising to 4.99% in two years’ time, making the monthly payments first £548, and then £647. The maintenance and insurance costs of owning are estimated at £65 a month rising at 2.5% a year.
Capital then compare that to renting a similar house at a rent of £595 a month (based on the current consensus rental yield of 5.1%). Under these assumptions, it is the case that over a five-year period, it costs around £3,000 less to rent than to buy. But this is “not the whole story”.
Let’s say house prices stay stable. By repaying some principle along the way, our buyer will have amassed equity of £13,943 to add to the initial deposit of £28,000. If he sells he’ll pay fees. So he’ll probably end up with a gain of £9,000 or so in hand, for a total of £39,493.
On to our renter. He’s kept the near-£30,000 deposit he could have used to buy a house in the bank, on a fixed rate of 4% (3.4% post tax). So he has interest of £5,092. He pays the difference between rent and a mortgage into the account too, getting an interest rate of 2.4%. That gets him another £3,224. So he ends up with £38,719. He is worse off – by £729.
However given the tiny margin here, if house prices don’t stay stable – if they fall a few percent or even 5-10% - it won’t be the tenant that will be worst off in five years, it will be the buyer. By a long way.
Is that a risk most first-time buyers should be taking?


</H1>

Aberdeenangarse

Dunno, have you asked your Mum?

Really2

House cost to rent around £1200
Interest part of Mortgage around £130.

It's a personal thing. But for me? yes.

Joe_Bloggs

They assume a typical FTB mortgage of 3.29%, rising to 4.99% in two years’ time, making the monthly payments first £548, and then £647.

If you can get 3.29% for the first two years then why pay 4.99% from then on. It is 99 a month down the drain. Remortgaging is not without costs or stress. Relocating because your landlord is selling up is an ever present risk.

On to our renter. He’s kept the near-£30,000 deposit he could have used to buy a house in the bank, on a fixed rate of 4% (3.4% post tax).

20% of 4% gross makes 3.2% Net.

J_B.

Andy_L

Its a very tricky calculation with lots of variables, the only real way to know is to do the sums when you die.

Yes you only pay a mortgage for 25-30 years and then have an asset, whilst you pay rent for life & then have nothing. But the buyer has a life time of maintaince, buildings insurance, loss of capital, new kitchens etc but also security compatred to the renter who could be kicked out, but equally can move more cheaply to, eg, change jobs etc

Conrad

Who cares - more to life than money unless money is your God which is a very sad way to conduct ones life.

Ownership has many facets that appeal to people. Imagine on your death bed - memories of saving all that cash, who really cares about such things in the end?

Pimperne1

After 25 years, say age 55, mortgage paid off - live to 75. No rent to pay again ever.

Aft 50 years of renting - still rent to pay up till death at age 75.

50 years rental and increasing, 50 years mortgage and decreasing - no contest.

Oh, and did I mention that you will have an asset after 25 years worth, at today's rate £160k?

ruggedtoast

She's game I'll give her that.

I'm not really sure about her figures though. I'm paying about £450 interest a month on a house that would cost about £800 to rent. Anything I pay over this £450 is coming off the principle. In effect a tax free investment.

I do have to pay maintenance costs but I dont have to put up with the inconveniences of renting.

Realistically most people arent going to buy at auction who need a mortgage, and few non distressed vendors will sell there.

Road_Hog

Another trolling irrelevant thread. I think Aberdeenangarse responded with the correct and best answer.

doire_2

Road_Hog wrote: »

Another trolling irrelevant thread. I think Aberdeenangarse responded with the correct and best answer.

Why is it trolling? Do you say the same when hamish and co post front pages from the Express?

IveSeenTheLight

Andy_L wrote: »

IYes you only pay a mortgage for 25-30 years and then have an asset, whilst you pay rent for life & then have nothing.

I'm finding that you can buy in less than 25 years as the mortgage debt is reducing month on month.
If you increase your mortgage payments in line with annual income increases you take years off the amortization period