That notion is about on par with the "Those who buy are complete idiots" notion that is bandied around so much in this thread, IMO.

I also sleep pretty soundly knowing I have limited exposure to the stock market being that my knowledge in this field is limited, knowing I have a stable roof over my head for as long as I want to stay in this place.

Can't we just accept that there are reasons good and bad to each person's lifestyle that will dictate whether they should or shouldn't buy or rent? And many of those reasons will come down to values and wants and these aren't always based on fundamentals which is not the be all and end all.

True, it really depends on the reasons as to why one buys.

But at TODAYS prices, the reasons against buying far outweigh most of the reasons for buying.

We just see too many people taking on too much debt to buy a single asset that has a lot of risks, thinking they know everything about real estate and that prices will never come down. I think the thread is just making people more aware of the risks associated with buying, and not to be lured into it by House hornyness culture that Vancouver has. Or to blindly listen to their Realtors who have a personal and monetary interest.

Disclaimer, I own a detached single family dwelling. I purchased when prices were cheaper, but if you were to ask me if I would purchase my home at todays prices? The answer is no.

The reason the whole 'renting is a waste of money' thing came about was that renting used to actually be a waste of money, look at the US, it's mostly cheaper to buy then rent, and prices are increasing or mostly stable, thus unless you're a temp worker or likely to move, for the most part, renting is a waste of money

in vnacouver, and canada in general, the opposite is now true. prices never higher, debt never cheaper, cheaper to rent, prices are not going up above inflation... it's just a valid comment when the time is right.

I think it's not a pro vs. con sentiment each of us have toward RE.

The main problem is that with the RE price so high, many people in their late 20s/early 30s have RE as their ONLY investment because they simply couldn't afford to invest in anything else after home purchase.

However, RE at today's prices, and by any logical forecast is a lousy investment. Especially it might be the largest purchase ever for many. Any potential loss could be devastating for one's finance in the long run.

Thus, while we keep our discussion on the RE, I do want to warn people that, if you are taking your home purchase as your investment (either partially or entirety), do as you'd do with any other investment; due diligence, risk assessment and most important of all, never over-extend yourself or let emotions run into your decision.

This thread is quite interesting in regards to anyone buying real estate in Vancouver. The tone is you are lose your shirt if you buy at these current prices. I would be a little nervous myself to buy right now. However everyone speaks about the stock market is the best place to invest your money. The stock market, especially in the US is set up for the big investment firms and big investors to prosper and for most small individual investors to lose. I always hear how this person made a killing, but you never hear about the guy who loses big. The stock market imo is as risky, if not more, than real estate.

^ That is what I was alluding to. If your stocks flop, you lose it all, unless you are willing and able to wait and ride out a possible recovery. If the housing bubble bursts, so long as you have a job and continue to make your mortgage, you still have a roof over you head (and you can once again wait and ride out a possible recovery).
Posted via RS Mobile

Well yeah, when you lose in the stock market your money's gone.

At least if your home loses value, you'll still have a roof over your head if you can still make the mortgage payments.

A lot of misconception about 'investing' the last few posts (although it is entirely common), this recent post from GreaterFool sums it up pretty well when it comes to the general public's perception to investing:

When individuals here say to 'invest', they don't mean to just dump all your savings into AAPL. It will take a lot more time and effort to learn and manage your finances as compared to simply plunking down a down payment, kicking back in your La-Z-boy in your new home and blindly paying monthly mortgage payments, but that is why most people choose the latter.

The rest of the blog explains further: Real men invest ? Greater Fool ? Authored by Garth Turner ? The Troubled Future of Real Estate

This comparison is really only valid if you consider the house you live in an investment opportunity.

I'm a firm believer that owning a principal residence should not be viewed as an investment vehicle. My money that is placed in equities, bonds, REITs and such are to increase wealth to fund my retirement and to cover any rainy days.

The money placed/locked into my principal residence is just for shelter. Any money placed into a residential or commercial property that is used for rental income is what I consider an investment vehicle.

If the stock market crashes, generally housing crashes (unless government intervention steps in to cause a hesitation in that reaction). When the economy tanks, jobs are lost. Therefore, the risk of being unemployed is hardest on those who have a mortgage on their principal residence. You're still paying interest and monthly payments, and to downsize to save money, you have to sell. If you're renting, well, it's a lot easier to move to a cheaper place to stop hemorrhaging money.

Which is why at the current condition of the housing market in Canada and the stagnation of the economy, I wouldn't recommend buying a home for most people, especially the younger generation, due to the higher risk they would expose themselves to.

This thread started mainly due to the high valuation placed on Vancouver real estate. The bulls of housing market brought up the idea buying is better than renting. And what I'm saying is that yes buying makes sense when the home is at a more reasonable prices. I don't want to rent for the rest of my life. I bought a house in early 2013 in U.S. because I thought it made sense at the time.

Look I get having the security and comfort of your home, I get it. But to say people who rent are somehow inferior is a complete bogus. You might think by having limited stock exposure you are doing a smart thing. I think with all the money central banks having printed in recent years I want to have a lot of good qualities companies in my portfolio to protect myself from inflation. A house in theory is a very good inflation hedge but I don't know if I can say the same for Vancouver since so many people at knee-deep in debt. A higher inflation could hurt a lot of people who are already budgeted to their limits.

Common misconception not just in Canada but around the world is that stocks are dangerous. You shouldn't invest in equities because you could lose it all. I would suggest you go back and take a look at how stocks have performed over the last 200 years and say it to me with a straight face that stocks are dangerous. The losers who lost it all in the stock market bought at the top and sold it all at the bottom. Who bought during 2009? I did. Would I buy the market now? Not really. But many people are getting in now. See what I mean?

If home prices say correct 20%, in a 20% down-payment and 80% mortgage situation, you've wiped out your entire home equity. It is easy to say oh you know it doesn't matter because you still have a roof over your head. People are way overconfident over their risking tasking abilities. I saw people cry on 60 minutes few years back talking about how much they lost in their home. It can be very emotional.

A stock goes down for many reasons. Sometime it is just a short term blip and could actually be a buying opportunities. This is not the permanent capital lose you are alluding to because companies are a lot more resilient than we individuals.

Do you even understand what it means to own stock in a company? The stock price of a company doesn't always reflect the value of a company. For example, at the bottom of the 2009 financial crisis, Scotiabank shares were valued at $24.83/share eventhough they were making a whopping $3.32/share. That means for every $7.50 you invested in the company, they were making you a dollar. So yes you lost 50% in paper value of your investments, but you still owned shares in a company that was making that much money per share. So the idea that you lost everything doesn't make any sense whatsoever to people who analyze the situation. The only people who got burned were people who panicked and fire-sold their investments, or the people who heavily leveraged and gambled money that wasn't theirs to begin with. People who truly "invested" just waited it out or put in even more money.

So let me rephrase your statement so it makes sense in your head:
If the stock market crashes, so long as you have a job and continue to pay rent, you still have a roof over you head (and you can once again wait and ride out a possible recovery)

The fact that you have a job that pays is the only reason you have a roof over your head. It is a fallacy to believe that the only reason you have a roof over your head is because you have a mortgage on the house.

The thing is that stock market crashes correlate with recession = job losses. Which in turn typically leads to default on a mortgage. You are at risk either way. Even those smug "I make a 6-figure trade job in Alberta" people were getting their F350 and home repoed cause work stopped due to commodity prices crashing.

Don't forget that if/when the housing bubble does burst, then there is a very strong possibility that interest rates have also risen.

So not only will your RE be worth less, you will actually have to pay more in your mortgage. And there's even a very real possibility that the balance of your mortgage is going to more than the market value of your property is worth. In other words, you will owe more than your house is worth.

Pretty tough pill to swallow for those who bought high and are currently already barely able to afford their mortgages today.

Bingo. If housing slows down, we gonna have a lot of people in the construction, building material, home renovation sectors looking for work. Negative feedback loop begin.

I haven't said or implied that at all. Simply stating that the thought of home buyers are complete idiots, is akin to renters are bums.

We all have the reasons for making the choices we do. For every idiot home buyer, there is also a renter who is a bum.

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert on stocks. But what about the buyer who buys into say, Blackberry at $100/share to see it rise to ~$140, then eventually dwindle to <$10... you can't tell me that's a good proposition in any way/shape/form. Of course we diversify to limit overall risk, but just take as an example.

I think it's easy to say that because you're in a position to wait for the low to correct, and even take advantage of it by buying in during that low. What if you were depending on your stocks for retirement? There are MANY people who delayed retirement because of what the market did during the crash. And that also had huge implications on the economy backing up entry level workers and making it difficult to find employment, make money, spend money, stimulate the economy, etc etc.

If you get a good deal ( like myself) it isn't so bad. 300K for a single bedroom apt at good location (near metrotown) isn't such a bad deal.

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Let me give you a better analogy of in terms of real estate. People own a home. Then with the rest of their money, they invest in another property on the hopes it provides rental income and that it increases in value.

Ends up they bought in Detroit, and in an area that became a complete ghetto. Rent now barely covers utilities and taxes, and property value drops 50%. Now they may have to sell it at a loss and the rental income can't support their lifestyle.

Same situation, except a stock owner (assuming they are properly diversified) has an asset that is consistently trying to grow versus an asset that after 20 years is still the same building on the same piece of land.

If you're looking at property as an investment, it's a pretty lousy proposition at this point. You could use the mortgage interest you would be paying to rent instead (note I specifically stated mortgage interest). 3% of 300k would give you 9k a year that you can use on rent, that may seem low, but add on the extra 150-300 in condo/strata fees and taxes etc. you would pay each month, and you would likely be able to rent a superior place than you could buy without worrying about fixing things and all the other miscellaneous costs hidden in home ownership.

You would be able to save the extra amount that would normally go towards principal and invest it in a diversified stock portfolio which historically outperforms real estate. The benefit of this method is liquidity and mobility. You can withdraw money from a stock market in the snap of a finger. Can you do that with a home? The answer is simply no.

^ I think most people already understand that real estate in Metro Vancouver is a lousy "investment" right now. But, what if you can make the numbers work, and just want a place where you can raise a family and pursue your hobbies, such as restoring old cars? And what if you're committed to Metro Van in the long-term and are safe professionally? Sure, renting can work in the short-term and when you're young, but renting has hidden costs too such as moving, storage costs, etc. For all the people that boast of great landlords who never raise their rent, there are countless others who live in mold-infected crapholes with indifferent landlords. Good rental properties go just as quickly as good houses, if not more quickly. There is also the cost of stability which is different for everyone. Not everyone aspires to have a globe-trotting, move-on-a-whim type of lifestyle.
Posted via RS Mobile

If you buy a house and 3 years later the price drops by 10% does it matter if you are not planning to move? I don't think so. And if you are planning to move but staying in the same city your new house will be 10% cheaper. 10/15 years later the house will be worth more than you bought it for. As long as you got a good stable job and don't plan to move buying a house is not a big risk.

Wondering what you guys would do in my position.
Like most Gen Y kids...it's almost a necessity for parents to help with their downpayment.

My rents will help me put 30% down. Afraid if I dont buy soon they'll spend it elsewhere. What should I do?
I be a fool not to take it and run. I have a feeling lots of first time buyers are put in this situation and pressured by there parents.

Take their downpayment, invest it.. use the dividends to rent a place... tell them you bought it. You'll have a place to live and a pile of cash.

How many people here actually know how to invest? and are successful at it?