Hacker News Reader

Comment by pstack | Hacker News Reader

My thoughts, also. It used to be that you could reasonably argue the money you'd spend "investing" in a home would be better spent in the market, but that would not seem to be the case, these days. Not to mention, there is now a distinct value to having a roof over your head that is your own that is, perhaps, more emphasized than five years ago.

View on HN

One thing to always consider is that even when the housing market makes money there are ways to benefit from it without owning a house.

For instance, buy an index with a low maintenance fee that tracks the REIT. It's also a lot quicker (and easier) to get out of that index fund than it is to get out of your home. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/FundsSnapshot?FundId=0123&#...

The key is, you can invest in real estate without owning a home and better still: be diversified into multiple kinds of real estate. A home is a very homogeneous investment vehicle. Think of it more like a savings account with a maintenance fee but you can live inside it.

"For instance, buy an index with a low maintenance fee that tracks the REIT."

That throws the calculation way off, because you don't get the tax benefits associated with buying and living in a house.

In effect you may be owning a very small sliver of the loan the person renting the apartment to you is paying off. By giving them a tax break, their ability to repay the loan improves and as one of the many people who has invested in their success, you get a return on your investment for taking a risk in that market. It's not like that interest saved vanishes. Someone benefits from it. In this case it happens to be the financial system backing the loan as well as the person who took the loan.

Money flows, tax breaks can decrease the viscosity of that flow.

There's more than one way to play the game. :)

from a tax and dividend point of view probably better to own the REIT

Reply on news.ycombinator.com