Seattle Bubble

News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Seattle Bubble - News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Entries Tagged as 'buy-vs-rent'

Rent vs. Buy Comparisons: Have the excesses been removed?

By The Tim on October 14th, 2009 at 6:00 AM · 102 Comments

Let’s try another rent vs. buy exercise to see if “all the excesses have already been removed” as some have claimed. Rather than delve into depth on a specific randomly-selected Seattle-area neighborhood, let’s instead look at what a specific type of house might cost you in multiple Seattle-area neighborhoods to rent vs. how much it would cost to buy.

Methodology
The prices quoted below are for a 3-bed, 2-bath single-family homes with 1,750 to 2,000 square feet. For the rentals, these are based on actual houses I found currently on the rental market. For the sales, I used sale records of actual prices that people have paid in the last three months. Where possible, I have located multiple samples that match the description above and taken the average price.

To calculate the monthly payment (principal + interest only), I’ll be using a 5.15% interest rate (roughly the average over the last three months), (generously) assuming 20% down on a 30-year mortgage. Keep in mind that the true cost of buying also includes insurance, taxes, maintenance, and a host of other costs generally not paid by a renter. For a more detailed breakdown of the total costs (and tax benefits) of buying, hit up this 2007 post.

I have also indicated the price to rent ratio, which is simply the home price divided by the total rent paid in a year.

Area For Rent P + I Home Price Ratio
Ballard $1,595 $2,070 $473,661 24.7
Queen Anne $2,000 $2,686 $615,000 25.6
Shoreline $1,415 $1,609 $368,379 21.7
Kirkland* $1,511 $2,040 $466,916 25.8
Redmond $1,450 $1,877 $429,625 24.7
Renton $1,250 $1,428 $326,938 21.8
West Seattle $1,650 $2,271 $520,000 26.3

According to a table of data from Fortune Magazine, Seattle’s price-to-rent ratio just before the local peak in prices was at 38.0, compared to a 15-year average of 23.3. In our table above, the average price-to-rent ratio for a 3-bed, 2-bath home in a handful of Seattle-area neighborhoods comes out to 24.3. Unfortunately, the two are not directly comparable since Forbes’ calculation included houses, condos, and apartments all among the rentals (which would drive the rental prices lower and the long-term average price-to-rent ratio higher), while my data was drawn only from single-family homes.

While home prices have come down some since I first researched the rent vs. buy discussion in detail back in 2007, a growing oversupply of repartmenting condos and accidental landlords is also pushing down rents recently, so the price-to-rent ratio hasn’t actually changed as much as one might expect.

Overall, price-to-rent ratios in the low-to-mid 20s still seems a bit high. Not crazy out of control bubble high, but it still looks like there is room for a bit more correction. Especially when you consider that the current prices are being artificially propped up by unnaturally low interest rates and the $8,000 tax credit in the midst of nearly 10% unemployment and a local economic scene that has yet to show any clear signs of turning the corner.

* [Updated, see comment #71 below.]

→ 102 CommentsCategories: Features
Tags: , , ,

TIME: Renting Still a Better Deal in Seattle

By The Tim on August 20th, 2009 at 5:29 PM · 17 Comments

In their latest issue TIME Magazine declares that in many cities, price-to-rent ratios indicate that buying a home has become a better deal than renting for the first time in years… but not yet in Seattle: Is Owning a Home Better Than Renting?

“A year ago, it was a better deal to rent,” says Andres Carbacho-Burgos, an economist at Economy.com “Now you have a significant number of areas, especially those hit the hardest by the correction, where, when you compare prices to rents, you’d be led to believe it’s a good time to buy.”

Home $weet HomeA significant number — but not everywhere. At TIME’s request, Economy.com ran the numbers for 54 metro areas and compared their current price-to-rent ratios to what their ratios have been over the past 15 years. The result: in 21 cities, renting still looks to be the better bargain. Among the renter-friendly outposts are Baltimore; Raleigh and Charlotte, N.C.; Salt Lake City; San Antonio; Trenton, N.J.; Philadelphia; Honolulu; Seattle; and Portland, Ore.

Of course, this is the same publication that published the now-infamous Home $weet Home issue at the height of the bubble in 2005, so it’s probably a good idea to take their advice with a large grain of salt.

That being said, the rent-vs-home-price analysis is a generally sound concept, and our latest update on this metric does show the ratio 19% above its 1990-2001 average. Unless there is some reason that Seattle is a considerably more desirable place to live than it was in 2001, Seattle home prices probably do still have a ways yet to fall.

(Barbara Kiviat, TIME, 2009.08.20)

→ 17 CommentsCategories: News
Tags: , , ,

“Throwing Away Money”

By The Tim on June 9th, 2009 at 10:47 AM · 127 Comments

One of the reasons we would often hear people use to justify overspending on a home during the bubble was that they wanted to stop “throwing away money” on rent.

I would hope that by now most people have realized how ridiculous that concept is, but I thought it might help dispel the notion if we consider a pair of hypothetical (but completely plausible) scenarios.

Couple A is renting a 2-bedroom, 1.5-bath townhouse for $1,000 a month in Ballard. Their $1,000 pays for not only the roof over their heads, but the water/sewer/trash, any necessary maintenance, and access to shared facilities such as a pool, hot tub, and workout room.

Over the past three years Couple A have spent around $35,000 on shelter. If they decide they want to move, it’s as easy as waiting until the lease is up and collecting their security deposit.

Couple B decided in 2006 that they were tired of “throwing away money on rent.” They didn’t have a down payment, but that of course didn’t stop them from qualifying for a $400,000 loan on an adorable 2-bedroom, 1.5-bath Ballard craftsman. With an interest rate of 5.7%, their (PITI) payments are around $3,000. Of course, this doesn’t include any services or maintenance.

Over the past three years Couple B have spent around $67,000 on mortgage interest alone, and their home is now valued at around $340,000—15% less than they paid. If they decide they want to move they have three options: Come up with about $40,000 in cash to cover the difference between their mortgage and the house’s value, convince the bank to accept a short sale, or walk away.

Now, which of these hypothetical couples seems more like they have been “throwing away money” to you?

→ 127 CommentsCategories: Features
Tags: , , ,

News Roundup: Time to Rent, Tax Credits, Indices…

By The Tim on May 28th, 2009 at 8:07 AM · 27 Comments

Here are a few relevant news stories that have popped into my inbox in the last few days:

The plan referred to in the second story above would be the irresponsible, counter-productive one we discussed here last month. Frankly, I hope the IRS figures out a way to prevent people from pre-acquiring the tax credit, but realistically I suspect the plan will move forward.

Nobody can accuse real estate professionals (or, more accurately, their lobbying groups) of letting the bubble deflate without a fight, I suppose.

→ 27 CommentsCategories: News
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

To Buy or Rent – Not Just an Emotional Decision

By The Tim on January 10th, 2009 at 1:15 PM · 81 Comments

Here’s an interesting piece that ran in the Seattle Times today: To rent or to buy? The story of two couples

The decision to sell their house and go back to renting has meant more time and even more money for Jill and Dan Keto and their family.

“The point is, putting money into a house is not a wise allocation of funds right now,” says Keto. “And just because you have a home does not mean you will be happy.”

About the same time the Ketos were going from owners to renters, another 30-something couple and their 3-year-old Great Dane mix went the other way.

After renting an apartment on Capitol Hill for several year, Shana and Michael Graham decided to buy their first house. One of the reasons they made the jump was because they saw prices falling.

“You have to think of it as perceived value until you really have to sell it,” he says, comparing the housing market to the stock market. “It’s just a perception at this point about how much you would make or lose because it’s always changing.”

It’s interesting to read the rationale of people that are making these decisions right now.

Here are a few other tidbits pulled from the article:

The best thing to do is not think of a house as a short-term investment, says Danilo Pelletiere, research director for the National Low Income Housing Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.

“Ask yourself if you will feel really badly if you buy a house and it falls in value,” says Pelletiere. This won’t happen if you are buying for the right reasons — because you like the house and plan to stay for a while.

Anyone who plans to live in their house for five years or more would still be safe to buy, according to Pelletiere, who says that rule of thumb still applies even in this declining economy.

These comments are similar to something that was said in yesterday’s comment thread by Steve Tytler:

We may not bottom out on home prices this year, but if you are buying a home to live in for the next 10 years, who cares?

What Steve Tytler and Danilo Pelletiere both seem to be ignoring is what commenter patient pointed out:

If I can get the home 10% cheaper by waiting another year it will improve my cash flow for the time I have the mortgage. That is surely something to care about.

I ran the numbers on a scenario like this to see how much money we were talking about. Here’s what I came up with:

Say you are in the market to buy a home today, priced in the $400,000 range. You have $40k for a down payment. We will assume 5% interest rates.

If you buy now, your monthly outlay for principal and interest only is $1,933. Over a 10-year span, you spend $231,960.

If you wait a year and buy a similar house for 10% cheaper, your monthly outlay for PI is $1,718. Over a 10-year span you spend $206,160.

That’s a monthly savings of $215 (over 10%), while the 10-year savings is $25,800.

To me, saving $25,800 over the course of 10 years is nothing to say “who cares” to. Danilo Pelletiere said that if you buy a house for the “right reasons,” you won’t “feel really badly” if the price goes down. That’s all well and good, but passing up a savings of over $200 a month is a matter of my financial bottom line, not my emotional well-being.

What’s also amazing to me are some of the comments left by Seattle Times readers on the story:

So now the renters won’t have enough deductions to use the long form. No mortgage interest deduction, no property tax deduction, no sales tax deduction.

The only advantage I can see with renting is that you have no debt. But you forfeit all that leverage and tax deductions.

In addition to the favorable tax treatment realized by a homeowner in the form of itemized deductions and capital gains exemption, one should also consider the current actions of our federal government.

Clearly it’s going to take more than a year and a half of falling home prices to shatter the ingrained perception in many people’s minds that buying a home is always the right decision, no matter what.

→ 81 CommentsCategories: News
Tags: , ,

Renting in and Around Seattle Still the Smart Financial Move

By The Tim on December 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 AM · 80 Comments

Let’s take an updated look at some Seattle-area rent vs. buy comparisons to see if the situation has improved at all since we analyized it last summer. Back then, the real-world example I used compared two similar homes in Kirkland. Total monthly costs for the rental were $1,515, while the home for sale would have cost $2,690 per month—a difference of $1,175 in favor of renting.

For the purpose of our comparison, we will again assume that the potential home buyer or renter is a married couple with enough in the bank to make a 20% down payment and are qualified for a 30-year fixed-rate loan at current rates (5.75%).

In today’s first comparison, I found two homes in Kirkland.

For rent—4-bed, 3-bath, 1,800 sqft house with a 2-car garage. Monthly price: $1,495.
For purchase—4-bed, 2.75-bath, 1,900 sqft house with a 2-car garage. Price: $400,000.

I’m not going to go over exactly how all the values below were calculated, since it has been covered extensively before. If you would like to follow along at home, feel free to download my spreadsheet that will calculate the costs for this or any other set of inputs.

  Renting    Buying   
Rent/Mortgage:    $1,495 $1,867
Insurance: $20 $163
Property Tax: - $383
Tax Savings*: - ($254)
Maintenance: - $333
Total: $1,515 $2,492

*: (year 1 only, less standard deduction)

In today’s comparison, the monthly savings from renting has dropped slightly down to $977. But how does the financial situation change over the next five or ten years? Let’s add a few more assumptions. 1) The house appreciates an average of 1% per year (probably generous). 2) You can invest your cash and get a 2% rate of return. 3) The renter adds the $977 monthly savings to their investment. 4) To realize any cash gains on the house will require paying 6% to agents and 1.78% in excise tax. 5) Interest earned on your cash investment is taxed yearly according to the 25% tax bracket. 6) Rent increases at 3% per year.

Given those assumptions, after 5 years today’s renter would have $145,000 in their investment, while the buyer would net just $91,000 from the sale of their home. After 10 years, the renter has $208,000, and the home buyer that sells will walk away with $141,000.

Let’s run the numbers for another pair of homes, this time closer in, in the ever-popular Ballard.

For rent—3-bed, 1-bath, 2,180 sqft house with a no garage. Monthly price: $2,195.
For purchase—3-bed, 2-bath, 2,100 sqft house with a 1-car garage. Price: $550,000.

  Renting    Buying   
Rent/Mortgage:    $2,195 $2,568
Insurance: $20 $163
Property Tax: - $527
Tax Savings*: - ($433)
Maintenance: - $458
Total: $2,215 $3,283

*: (year 1 only, less standard deduction)

So over in Ballard today’s renter will save $1,068 a month. With the assumptions stated above, after 5 years the renter has $181,000 in the bank, while the buyer gets $125,000 from the sale of their home. After 10 years, the renter has $246,000, the buyer gets $195,000.

I’m certainly not one to say that no one should buy a home ever, but the way things look around Seattle at present, renting for now is still clearly the way to go. Remember that the rentals in my comparison were nice, large houses. If you can stand renting a smaller apartment for a while you’ll be saving even more.

Of course there are always exceptions to every scenario. I’m sure there are people out there today finding amazing deals from highly motivated sellers. If you find such a deal, more power to you. But for most of us, renting in Seattle is still the smart financial move.

→ 80 CommentsCategories: Features
Tags: , , , , ,