[michaelscott]

The rent you charge is for providing a domicile, I as a renter couldn't (and shouldn't) care whether this is enough to deal with repairs, especially since you as owner are certainly not repairing things every single month.

If the rent is more than the mortgage why would I rent? Beyond potential credit problems (which can generally be solved within a matter of months barring egregious exceptions) and maybe conveyancing and transfer fees (which can be negotiated into a mortgage loan), you'd have to be a fool to rent.

[ghaff]

>If the rent is more than the mortgage why would I rent?

Because owning a property involves putting money down, maintaining, being exposed to market value fluctuations, etc. on a very expensive and relatively non-liquid asset.

Sure, buying would mostly have been the right financial decision in the Bay area at least over the past decade for most people. But, especially if I don't want to deal with home ownership, can find an attractive rental property, and want to maintain flexibility, paying a premium to rent can absolutely make sense.

[michaelscott]

Of course in certain conditions it is preferable to rent (haven't laid down roots, still building the beginning of a career etc), but as a purely financial decision for a regular, long term domicile it doesn't make sense to pay a premium to not "deal with home ownership". It's not like running a business.

[ghaff]

>It's not like running a business.

It sometimes feels that way :-)

I don't really disagree with you although the risk-adjusted finances of rent vs. buy are less clear than a lot of people make them out to be in the absence of 20-20 hindsight. Especially if you reach a point where you're fairly locked into an area for whatever reason, it mostly makes sense to buy if you can. If the work associated with owning a house is a big deterrent, there are lower-effort alternatives like many condos.

[dragonwriter]

> If the rent is more than the mortgage why would I rent?

Because the you don't have the savings for the downpayment to qualify for the mortgage with the payment at issue.

Because property ownership cones with more expenses than just he mortgage, many of which remaining with the owner in most leases.

Because no one is selling single units of the type you want at the time, but someone is renting them out.

Because you're bearish on the housing market and prefer the risk of paying too high a rent at the end of a relatively short lease term to longer-term exposure to risk of loss of property value.

Because you intend to have a federally controlled, even if state legal, substance on the property, and want to control your exposure to risk from civil forfeiture.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[michaelscott]

As with conveyancing or transfer fees, a downpayment can be negotiated into a mortgage loan. Extra expenses should remain with the owner, since it is their asset. Everything else you've mentioned would be a corner case at best and not applicable to the average person looking for somewhere to keep the rain off their heads.

[dragonwriter]

> As with conveyancing or transfer fees, a downpayment can be negotiated into a mortgage loan

Sure, but it drives up the mortgage cost (both because the principal is higher and because interest rates are higher with lower downpayment), so the rent being higher than the actual landlord's mortgage doesn't mean that it is higher than your mortgage for an equivalent property purchased at the same time.

> Extra expenses should remain with the owner, since it is their asset.

Whethe it should or not, those costs can be a reason to prefer renting over ownership even with a slight premium of rent over mortgage cost.