David Leonhardt buys a home
David Leonhardt of the New York Times, among the most prominent apostles for renting, wrote a piece this week explaining why he just bought a home in Washington, D.C. The crux is that falling home prices and rising rents have made ownership relatively more affordable.
"I’m still not sure how good our timing was...."In fact, if you’re now renting — almost anywhere — and do not need to move, I’d probably recommend that you wait to buy. The market is still coming your way.
"But it’s O.K. with me if our timing wasn’t perfect. After several years of reporting on the housing market, I’m convinced that the most common real estate mistake is viewing a house first as a financial investment and only second as a home."
Leonhardt is a numbers guy, and he grounds the decision in a simple comparison I've written about before. I'll let him describe it: "You find two similar houses, one for sale and the other for rent, and divide the sale price by the annual rent. You can call the result the rent ratio."
More sophisticated versions of this comparison adjust the cost of ownership by considering factors such as the down payment and the mortgage interest rate, which can differentiate the actual cost of ownership for two homes bought at the same price. The Times offers a calculator on its Web site.
Leonhardt writes that a rent ratio above 20 means ownership is very expensive compared to renting.
"At current mortgage rates, for example, a $500,000 house would typically bring monthly expenses of about $3,000 (taking into account taxes, repairs, a typical down payment and, yes, the mortgage deduction). When the rent ratio is 20, that same house could be rented for only about $2,000 a month."There are two problems with buying a house in this situation. The first, plainly, is the extra $1,000 you’re paying each month for the privilege of owning, on top of the thousands of dollars you spent on closing costs. The second problem is that a rent ratio above 20 is a good indication of a bubble. When the prices of houses get out of line with the competition’s prices — that is, those in the rental market — a correction is coming."
For both of these reasons, Leonhardt says he probably still wouldn't buy a home in Boston, where the rent ratio generally remains above 20.
Enjoyed this post? Get blog updates delivered to your reader. Click here.







Yeah, read that last weekend, and generally found nothing to disagree with. I have a quibble with the "not viewing the house as an investment" but since its quite clear most people don't actually know what "investment" means, to the point of describing a purse as an investment, he's probably right.
Most people thought they were investing, and were actually speculating, and are probably still unclear on the difference.
More accurate would be the old cliche of "don't invest in things you don't understand". If you don't understand real estate, and it's clear most don't, you shouldn't treat it as an investment, but rather something else, whatever you call it.
oh, another thing.
Amazing how many people were resistant to the idea of Boston being overpriced on a rental equivalence when we discussed it a few weeks ago. I wonder if this will lead to people changing their views?
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.