Is your home an investment?
I’ve seen it argued that while it may be a poor time to buy investment property in Vancouver, it’s never a bad time to buy a home you live in because ‘your primary residence is not an investment‘. While its true that your home will never be as liquid as stocks or a high interest savings account, it seems disingenuous to claim that your primary home is not an investment, particularly when the next reason to buy now is often that ‘prices always go up in the long run‘.
If the hope for future price increases isn’t an investment than what is it?
According to this article the average house price in Vancouver for November was $519,294, down about $29,000 from the previous month. Now I don’t know about you, but anything I buy for more than a half million dollars is going to be a fairly major purchase in the grand scheme of things, and $29,000 represents some nice renovations, a chance to buy more space or a few really nice vacations.
Maybe I should be unconcerned about the historical ups and downs of the real estate market since my home is not an investment, but if its not an investment then why is it so much more expensive to buy then it is to rent the same property?
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:37 pm
We bought our last home in 1995 and sold it for less than the purchase price six years later, after spending many tens of thousands of dollars on improvements. The thing about a home (vs. investment) is that life circumstances (health, etc.) often dictate that you don’t always get to choose when you sell (i.e., you can’t choose the market you’re selling in), and you can’t always “stay in the market” by buying something else … sometimes you have to take a big hit.
Home as an investment? Don’t count on it.
December 31st, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Personally, I’d rather pay rent with my better investment vehicles, but to each his own. Explaining the benefits of various investments to people is like banging your head against a wall, they seem to have such built-in notions of real estate, the stock market, etc. Capitalism as a system needs a lot more attention in our public school system. A lot of people can’t understand things like “marginal tax rate”. Ok, enough ranting.
Don’t forget, baby boomers have most of their “retirement investment” tied up in their property, that will add another interesting dynamic to the market over the next 20 years or so.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
December 31st, 2006 at 3:38 pm
An investment is any capital asset (physical or paper) which yields income. So obviously a house is an investment. The income from a house is the service called “shelter” which has a market price. You can sell that service to someone else (i.e. rent out the house) or consume the service yourself (live in it).
Now whether a house is a good investment is another question. If an investment is yielding less than a riskless investment (government bonds) the buyer is expecting capital gains and we call it a speculative investment. Which Vancouver RE definitely is right now.
But capital gains can be supported only by an improvement in fundamentals (higher income, i.e. rents, or lower interest rates), or by the appearance of an investor who is willing to take an even lower yield than you (the greater fool). Markets driven by the latter are bubble markets.
December 31st, 2006 at 5:22 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:01 am
Mr. A sell his house in 81 on cheap price.Mr.B purchased same house for 75k that house is worth 2 million Mr.A is on rent Mr .B is holding assets worth 2 million.
Buying house is not a difficult its difficult to manage if anybody have guts to manage he is the one to eat all fruits of yard at end in real estate life there is nothing to loose its always good to buy than renting
and thats the bottom line
January 1st, 2007 at 3:29 am
Especialy when he pays all that money to the bank in interest payments?
Happy New Year to each and every one of you!!
January 1st, 2007 at 10:50 am
Does this mean we should all be farmers?
January 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
Currently it isn’t for a First Home Buyer, or “investor” that expects to realize large gains in the near future. Taking out a large mortgage for the next 25-30 years at these current prices is not a good idea.
The rapid price increases in the last few years have probably hit the top in most markets. There may be some room in affluent neighbourhoods, but in working class suburbs the prices have become unaffordable for most.
There will probably be a correction or drop in prices over the next few years and it may take many more for them to come back up. So buying now and having to sell in the next 3 years could leave some upside down.
Taking into account what is currently happening in the US, and the slow down in the Canadian market, it probably would be a wise investment decission to wait for a good correction in the pricing before getting in.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:52 am
Are we talking Mexican pesos or something here? If you’re going to make up a story, at least take a look at the REBGV price graph and get some plausible numbers.
January 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:57 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 am
People buying now are looking at a house in the same way as a Loto 649 ticket, and that’s no investment.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Better than gold is wife who is prostitute. She will bring big money to household, plus she get very good with practice.
Mr. A buy goat, but Mr. B get prostitute wife, he very happy. Mr. A only get milk and little cheese, but Mr. B get many goat cheeses when neighbours visit his wife.
Plus, Mr. B get sexy time whenever he like. Wa wa wee wa! It’s very nice.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 am
Aaron Best
Reality check
Hotball Rob
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I bet your dad is a realtor.
trying to get another commission from his own kid.
Quite Frankly, I am not surprised.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Because they’re always right on topic? Are the anons feeling shut out of some other local blog comments?
My dad said land worth more than gold.
Awesome! I’m going to dig some up from the park across the street and I’ll sell it to him for half price! You know what I think? I think your posts are the invention of a bearish troll trying to get a reaction, which I must admit you do get.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Hey WG2C, sorry to hear that, but thanks for personal example of how things can go wrong with real estate ‘investments’
I don’t consider a home an investment, especially considering that in Canada we can’t use mortgage interest as a tax deduction on our primary residence.
I agree Warren - I wonder if this will change in Canada? I haven’t heard any great demand for it, but writing off interest on a primary residence would create a bit of a different market for single home owners vs. speculators.
Happy New Year to you too MK-Kids, and everyone else as well!
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
http://www.canada.com/theprovi.....95fa2651dd
Carey Ellingson, branch manager, Scotiabank, Sherwood Park, Alta.: Buy while you can!
Ellingson says the new mortgage options of zero down payment and amortization periods up to 35 years can help first-timers to buy a home before prices rise out of reach.
He expects real-estate prices in some provinces to rise further. If you are a borderline buyer today, “the longer you wait, the less opportunity you will have,” Ellingson says. “Take the leap of faith” and buy while you can.
- BCubbins (for some reason blogger isn’t letting me sign in)
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The problem, as I see it, isn’t so much whether your home is an investment, but if a home should be purchased soley as an investment. My answer to this has always been - no bloody way, and for the reasons mentioned in these two posts.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
That being said, homes are not assets with a lot of liquidity and their market value can fluctuate rather dramatically. Given the high cost of homes, and the fact that the decision to buy or sell often has more to do with life circumstances than market conditions, there are added risks.
As we are in a bubble now, with double digit percentage price increases every year, many have latched onto the idea that this is an easy way to get rich….
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Candidly, I think the “investor” plays a role here … I have a habit of buying high and selling low. I don’t think I’ve got it quite right yet.
Having said so, I think a lot of people are about to endure real misery with their RE investments, as the housing market saga continues to unfold.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
http://vancouver.craigslist.org/rnr/256683431.html
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
is poped in mail box today to kick start fresh new start for 2007 and its going to rock mkt. tomorrow to touch 1000per sqfeet around 2008.
BORAT
—–
if mr.b brought pros mr b should also become g a hole income will be double…..
its better to keep clean spill from this site thanx.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
its better to keep clean spill from this site thanx.
RC - is that you? Post some stats ferfaxaches!
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
http://www.bcassessment.bc.ca/asba2007/asba2.aspx
They added a great new feature. Sales date sorted by area for homes that sold last year. Awesome!
http://www.bcassessment.bc.ca/sss2007/sss2.aspx
Have fun!
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Bringing in m.i.d. in Canada would result in a one-off windfall for house owners (higher prices), and a continuing benefit (tax deduction). The cost of which would be paid by non-owners, who would be even worse off than they are now.
It makes no sense either from an economic or social equity point of view. As it stands right now a personal residence is tax neutral (no taxability or deductibility), and it should stay that way.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Mortgage interest deductability just shifts the tax burden from the (typically) better-off homeowner to the (typically) poorer renter.
- BCubbins
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Mortgage interest deductibility for personal residences is one of the worst tax policies imaginable. It is directly responsible for both the bloated prices and high personal debts south of the border.
Bringing in m.i.d. in Canada would result in a one-off windfall for house owners (higher prices), and a continuing benefit (tax deduction). The cost of which would be paid by non-owners, who would be even worse off than they are now.
It makes no sense either from an economic or social equity point of view. As it stands right now a personal residence is tax neutral (no taxability or deductibility), and it should stay that way.
You have to love the US for their great contradictions. This is a country that can’t stand the thought of socialized medicine because it mean that you may have to pay for your neighbour if they get cancer. But paying for your neighbour’s McMansion is perfectly fine.
I’ve had these debates with many Americans I know and strangely, none of them find it to be a problem. Go figure
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
Myraa: thanks for the BC assessment link!
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 am
And let’s not forget the “screw the new buyer” schemes like Prop 13 in California and SOH in Florida, which tax a house on its purchase price, not the market value. SOH has the added twist of allowing differential rates for non-residents.
That means your neighbour next to you with the paid off mortgage can pay less than 1/2 the property taxes on the same house! Plus he can vote for more local government spending which you get to pay for!
Destroy the capital markets for real estate! It’s the American Way!
April 21st, 2007 at 9:50 am
A house on 731(a drug and prostitution infested area)sold for
900000 plus isn’t that crazy!
I would never pay more than 250000 for the same house.No way man if Vancouver is the place left after a Nuclear Holocaust.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:20 am
To fgah, is that really true with the house? I´m a West Toronto Realtor, but I know Vancouver and that is a really high price for that area. I would like to know more about the house.