[71a54xd]

I feel like this is a question of what you're willing to be a slave to and realistic expectations as to how truly "wealthy" people have second homes.

For example, my parents love Cape Cod - they've vacationed there for nearly 20 years every summer for 20 years, renting each time for a few weeks. Until recently, the economics never made sense to buy - only last year did rental prices exceed basically what they could afford. Generally, I'd say rent.

That said, I also have family who own multiple beach houses in CA. Even though they're worth millions, they still rent out their beach houses when they're not using them on high-end rental sites. They've used VRBO but generally use higher end services. The key here is that even rich people view a second home as a loss-leading asset and try to have it generate income in the off season, on the east coast this is basically a lost cause if the home is in a vacation town that's dead in the winter.

With only $100k I'd say keep your money and keep renting, you keep all the upside and pay a small premium. If you really want to own something you'll just need more money.