|
|
|
|
|
|
by somenameforme
480 days ago
|
|
|
[0] is so unbelievably true having lived through a major natural disaster. People don't realize how much, in general, you're on your own you are after something like that. Really life and perspective changing. BUT I think you're also misunderstanding his point about buying - it's not about maximizing your wealth which in the end doesn't even matter, but rather about minimizing the things you need to worry about. Even bonds can be stressful because they're not guaranteed money as they might seem due to 'guaranteed returns.' If rates/inflation go up you're left with money losing pieces of paper. See Silicon Valley Bank [1] for the obvious example. Even if your house depreciates, it's still a house! There's even an upside - your rent to the government decreases. The one case where I think buying doesn't really make sense is for people who enjoy traveling long-term. You can still theoretically rent or sell the place, but now you're back to increasing life stresses especially in the rental cases because you have a lot of obligations there that would require employees if you're remote and so on. And then moving money internationally, especially between currencies, and all of this stuff. Just ugh, no no no. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Ban... |
|
|
But also: an owner occupied house is a single lumpy, undiversified asset. And in many cases it's bought on so much leverage, that its value is bigger than the buyer's entire net-worth.
> Even if your house depreciates, it's still a house! There's even an upside - your rent to the government decreases.
Yes. Though depending on government policies, you can also lose use of your house (or even lose your house). Depending on where you live and how you set up your holdings, investing in international stocks and bond can be more stable.
To summarise: owner occupied housing does make sense for a lot of people. But it's far from being automatically always being the best choice.