[forrestthewoods]

This is just math. You don’t have to earn $200,000/year to afford a $400,000 property. Borrowing $400k costs about $2000/mo. Call it $2500 with taxes and maybe an HOA. That’s about $30,000/year, or 15% of $200,000. Take home on 200 will be north of $150.

Mortgage rates are sub 3% today. That rule of thumb that’s “been around forever” existed when rates were 10%. Such a rule can not possibly be the same when the rate changes so dramatically.

The consistent rule is what percent of your take home you’re comfortable spending. Not many people - owners or renters - spend under 15% on housing.

[busterarm]

There's also a risk management calculation here. Sure the easy money and high leverage works if your life circumstances only change for the positive.

I've also seen lots of people in the last two years who had made similar sound decisions who were then furloughed, or lost their jobs, or got sick, or got REALLY sick and ended up losing everything.

If you want to make higher risk bets, there are better avenues for it and certainly ones that you don't live in and risk losing.

[dragonwriter]

> I've also seen lots of people in the last two years who had made similar sound decisions who were then furloughed, or lost their jobs, or got sick, or got REALLY sick and ended up losing everything.

In a non-recourse state, you don’t really “lose everything”. You lose the house, when the bank gets around to foreclosing. If you recognize the problem before you have adverse marks on your credit history, it's pretty trivial to secure an apartment before you do, otherwise the challenge is finding a landlord willing to consider details of your circumstances in renting rather than just saying no because of the adverse credit.

> If you want to make higher risk bets, there are better avenues for it and certainly ones that you don't live in and risk losing.

What specifically is a better avenue, allowing both the use of leverage and the downside risk protection of buying a house in a non-recourse state?

Because, having been through pretty much exactly the negative scenario you describe—losing the house and, the cleanliness of my credit history—I don't regret it at all.

[ineedasername]

If you're losing everything, it really doesn't matter if your home was 2x or 20x. It's all gone. But for those situations short of losing everything, (lost job, furloughed, sick) then the scenario I outlined that allowed for saving 20% of income would be just of useful if housing was 60% of living expenses or 20% of living expenses.

But you also haven't commented on the aspect of the scenario I presented where a 4x home was still under Rule 28.

No single rule can encompass complex multivariate systems. That is all I am saying here. Otherwise, how about we end it here: It's clear we both agree that financial stability is good and should be a part of any long-term plan, we may simply disagree on the specific parameters that allow for it, which is fine. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation-- HN is one of the few places on the internet where I find that possible.

[busterarm]

The point is that you're significantly less likely to lose your home at 2x.