Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Buying and selling property

When should you stop renting and buy?

Neil Faulkner
by Lovemoney Staff Neil Faulkner on 11 July 2012  |  Comments 19 comments

We give you a short cut to figure out whether it's time to stop renting your home and buy.

When should you stop renting and buy?

A few weeks ago I wrote about finding the “right” price of a property and how sellers can get the best price when selling. Read What's the 'right' price of your house? 

Now I'm looking at something completely different: is buying a specific property at a particular price going to make you financially better off than renting? (In the long run.)

Price increases are not the main thing

I've touched upon this subject in articles before, trying to get the typical British citizen to realise that how much your property price grows is not the most important thing; for example, the difference in costs you face over the long run compared to renting has more of an impact. 

Let's look at the differences in costs: 

Cost or asset

Home buyer

Renter

Taxes

Many home buyers must pay stamp duty.

A renter could potentially save or invest this sum for the future.

Various legal and admin costs over the years

A home buyer and owner could potentially pay lots in such costs over the years, particularly if they move up the ladder or re-mortgage a lot.

A renter will likely pay some legal and admin costs, but far less than a home owner. They could save or invest the difference.

Deposit

A home owner will typically put down many thousands in a deposit.

A renter will put down a much smaller rental deposit, and could save or invest the difference elsewhere.

Mortgage fees

A home owner will typically pay lots of fees over the years, particularly when they switch from deal to deal.

A renter could save or invest the difference.

Monthly payments

A home owner pays a monthly mortgage, which – even considering strong fluctuations in interest rates – is likely to be more expensive than renting at the beginning, and less expensive towards the end. These payments will end completely after a few decades.

A renter pays monthly rent that rises steadily over time. It's likely to be much cheaper than paying a mortgage through most of the first 15 to 20 years, and the renter could invest the difference. Thereafter, however, a mortgage will be cheaper, and a home owner catches up – particularly quickly when the owner has fully paid off the mortgage, continues to face rising rents.

Maintenance and buildings insurance

It's extremely tricky to estimate, but a home owner could easily face simply phenomenal maintenance and insurance costs over three or four decades of home ownership.

A renter faces virtually no maintenance and buildings insurance costs, and could invest the difference.

Assets

After several decades, you have a major asset, fully paid off.

After several decades, you have nothing to show for it.

In addition, home owners can fit-out and furnish a property how you want, and upgrade or renovate as often as you like. I mention this separately, because many home owners claim it's not a cost but a benefit of owning that you're allowed to personalise your property. Hence, whether you include such costs is a personal decision. 

Who usually wins?

Unsurprisingly, home owners are usually better off in the long run than renters. By the time you have owned for 35 years, far, far better off. And that's even though renters can save and invest more to begin with. Each year thereafter, you become dramatically richer still, in comparison to a renter. 

Even using very conservative calculations, such as assuming you bought at a peak and paid immense maintenance costs, you would have to pay a monthly mortgage that is massively higher than rent in order to be worse off in the long run. Either that, or you would have to buy in a moribund town – one that is dying because the industry in it is closing down, for example. 

Doing the sums isn't easy

But forget what's usual. Let's consider your specific situation. 

When I started this article, I was hoping to give you a nice, easy to understand series of sums and online calculators to help you work out for yourself whether it's worth buying your desired property or to keep on renting. 

After working through it with a couple of dummy examples, however, I can see why buyers don't normally do this. 

I've needed to write 10,000 words of notes and created 12 tables in Excel to do my calculations. There's no way I can simplify and explain that to you in a short article. Perhaps I'll write an ebook on it one day. 

Here's a short cut

In the meantime, I can at least give you a rough and very simplified short cut: 

A) Open this online mortgage calculator.

B) Type the mortgage amount you require to buy your desired property.

C) Type “30” as the number of years for the loan.

D) Type “8” as the interest rate on the loan.

Note: it doesn't matter if you don't think those numbers apply to you; it's all a way of simplifying an intricately connected series of calculations that should give you an estimate with a large margin of safety.

E) Divide the monthly repayment shown in that online mortgage calculator by the rent you would otherwise pay if you decided now not to buy.

For example, if the monthly mortgage payment is £990, and the property you would choose to rent if you didn't buy costs £660 per month, you divide 990 by 660, which is equal to 1.5. 

1.5 is the magic number, whereby you have an extremely high probability of being better off if you buy after you have owned for 35 years. Much better off. In most of the following years, your gains will only increase dramatically. 

I said earlier that I had excluded costs for personalising and making over your home. Even if you want to include those as a cost of owning, 1.5 is still going to give you a large safety margin. 

If the result is lower than 1.5, you're probably looking at real bargain territory. 

If it's over 1.5, that doesn't mean you should never buy. It just means the margin of safety falls. By the time you get to 2.0 the margin of safety could have got quite small. Before buying at this price, you should probably be as certain as possible that you intend to be a home owner for 40 years or beyond. 

Other issues

I haven't considered different but related issues such as affordability, personal circumstances, downsizing, super-prime properties, how to compare two potential properties to buy, buy-to-let, interest only or no mortgage, and much more. 

There are a lot more issues to look at. I should really write that ebook.

More:  Yorkshire BS launches Rollover  Mortgage for last-time buyers  |  Is overcrowding to blame for high house prices?

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (19)

  • The Strolling Roan
    Love rating 2
    The Strolling Roan said

    Neil,

    Have you considered the opposite scenario - Should you ever consider cashing in your gains from ownership and move to renting? Many retired people downsize through change of circumstances (children leave home, etc). They have the option of renting and maybe using the profits from their home sale for other purposes.

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Schilling-Goldstone
    Love rating 1
    Schilling-Goldstone said

    Is it possible to have some comments on a situation where I house owner HAS sold (because of down-sizing) and funds are deposited in low-interest bearing saving accounts waiting to be used for a possible acquisition of another home?

    We are in our early seventies and renting at the moment....is there an advantage to keep on renting??? Plenty of people on the Continent do......

    (By the way, no children here for any possible inheritance ideas....!)

    I would be grateful to receive your views.

    Klaus H. Schilling

    (khschilling@tiscali.co.uk)

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bobmattfran
    Love rating 58
    bobmattfran said

    I notice this article avoids the main problems. 1) In the present climate houses are over valued by probably up to 40%. Due to demand in the South East and the buy to let market inflating the value.

    2) Young people on average incomes cannot afford the deposit or the average house prices in the Southern half of the country.

    3) Not noticed the unemployment levels? Most people will not take out a long term financial risk/mortgage when the employment market is not stable or negative.

    4) Despite the banks saying they are lending they are not, and new mortgages are too expensive for most young people on average incomes.

    5) Existing house owners are facing an increasing squeeze on their costs, and many will, when the lending rates, rise will default on their payments.

    So tell me the good news without any bias towards the Financial Services Industry or the Banks?

    Answer??? There is none.

    Only a raving lunatic on average salary (the majority) would consider saddling themselves with a mortgage in the present climate.

    The article is either pure fiction or not very well thought through.

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    I email my MP about this and get no reply. I ask him to comment on the fact that buying a house is a massive gamble at present. There could be a double whammy here. It's accepted that prices are on the back of a bubble. Prices will drop 50% when the government runs out of fiddles / cash. Mortgage rates are at all time lows. Will they stay there for 25 years? So your house loses half its value, and repayments could double. Nice. That's this stupid country summed-up. I'm waiting until this economic turmoil is over. 0.5% IRs, fiddled LIBOR, EU financial turmoil, unemployment, QE, etc. These are very strange turbulent times. Not the backdrop for borrowing huge sums to buy the most expensive item you are ever likely to purchase.

    With renting you can foretell the future far more accurately, and have flexibility on your side, while watching economies stutter and struggle.

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • johnd993
    Love rating 12
    johnd993 said

    Theres allways someone (usually a renter) who tries to talk down the market in the hope of a crash so they can buy in again. But in the real world, houses are seen as solid assets and housing will continue to be in high demand so after years of such doom-mongerers trying their best - people still find home ownership highly desirable and much preferable to 'lodging' in something they cannot ever really call 'home'. Hence prices are where they are today. Theres little happening to change this in short term (we already have or have had some pretty bad news in th UK economy) and when things improve (including lending confidence by banks) confidence in bricks and morter will increase accordingly. I wouldnt forsee rises in prices like the 90's but a holding flat for a while and then with realistic single digit growth in the long term. This is the thinking of most intelligent people - and why people are still out there buying today. The rental market is full of people who would rather own- not the other way round!

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    johnd993. History disproves your logic. You're giving reasons why prices are expensive, mainly the joy of home ownership (translates to maintenance, insurance and the bank owns most of it for ages). Your logic fails when you see in modern times that prices have been substantially lower for much longer periods than the last few years, and we get a price bubble about every 20 years, which is always followed by a significant drop. In the 90s, my house dropped 125k to 82k (I know, I tried to sell it). It's all happened before and it will happen again. We are in a fake economy at present with low interest rates. Prices will drop and payments will go up. I would not encourage anyone into that situation.

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • fnm500
    Love rating 4
    fnm500 said

    Neil, I don't understand something: in the last box of your table comparing a home buyer versus a renter, the home buyer ends up with a major asset, but the renter does not. Why would this be the case, eventhough you have correctly (and repeatedly) mentioned in the previous 6 boxes of the table that the renter "could invest the difference". Wouldn't these investments have grown to a substantial asset of it's own?

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • cen1egb
    Love rating 1
    cen1egb said

    Since when is a monthly mortgage payment 1.5 times higher than paying monthly rent? The monthly cost of renting is usually higher as the landlord has to cover their cost of paying the mortgage, plus buildings insurance, plus the cost of any emergency or maintenance work that's needed, plus the risk that the property may be untenanted for some periods, plus quite often letting agents fees.

    The comparison table is also based upon a home owner moving frequently & so having to regularly pay new mortgage set up & legal fees plus taxes. What about the comparison between being able to choose to stay in the same property for as long you desire versus the risk that a landlord can ask you to move out whenever they want?

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • happy_man_1
    Love rating 0
    happy_man_1 said

    Wow ... quite a good post Neil and i'm glad you highlighted the fact that their are loads of other factors that will dictate whether you buy or you rent.

    The UK more than allot of other countries places a huge emphasis on owning your own property.Whether it happens today or tomorrow home ownership is seen by many as the one of the largest achievements of ones life. I think it comes from the school of thought that "a mans house is his castle" (sorry women..lol) . I think its this reason that influences us Brits to buy or rent coupled with the situation where in when where ready to make this decision. I asked my cousin why he still rents and hasn't bought and he replied ..."at the time i couldn't afford the deposit and now i'm renting i just cant be bothered with it anymore!"...... - I wonder if this is true for allot of people who rent?

    If this was different would we ever decide to pay rent to someone else to live in a house long-term which ultimately isn't ours! Making decorating or altering or simply building your life around your perfect little home always a slightly risky venture when you could be told to leave at any time?...(we all know that feeling when you've borrowed something from someone and all they do is remind you not to scuff it or make sure we don't break it etc..never a nice feeling). This is made worst by the rising cost of renting now outstripping mortgage repayments in many instances!

    I looked for solutions and all i could find was part ownership schemes....even a service which tries to get me a loan to borrow the deposit etc....I mean talk about shooting myself in the head ....a loan on top of a mortgage!...#Nothanks

    Im in touch with a few companies offering some real interesting solutions at the moment ...I'll let you know what happens with them! Me and my girlfriend are desperate to buy but dont have enough of the usual fees saved!....Fingers crossed!!

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • happy_man_1
    Love rating 0
    happy_man_1 said

    Ok guys….so I have been in contact with a company called Propsavvy….there website is http://www.propsavvy.com .They have deals in my area (east London) and they claim to offer a service through a PPS system (property purchasing system) that will allow me to save up to 75% in fees…meaning instead of spending nearly £60k on a mid-terraced house in Chingford I can buy it for just £20,000 (which is more like a 66% saving but still huge!) I have attached the link to the deal here: http://www.propsavvy.com/PSY-454/3-Bed-Terraced,-Houses-in-E4-for-sale check it out and tell me what you think! They say they are regulated, fully compliant and completely legal. I’m going to see what happens and keep ya posted!

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Neil Faulkner
    Love rating 32
    Neil Faulkner said

    Hi Klaus H. Schilling and The Strolling Roan.

    Those are both interesting scenarios. I'll see if I can work them into article ideas. If the editorial team of this website likes it, I'll do the research and write them up.

    Hi bobmattfran.

    I have quite a few issues with your comments.

    In my calculations, I assumed house prices were seriously "over-priced" by the traditional definition (i.e. your definition) of over-priced. That's one of the ways I made sure it was a conservative way to measure the worth of the house.

    Secondly, you make it seem like all properties are currently "over-priced" (by your definition), but there will be plenty of cheaper properties for those who take the time to look for them or haggle for them.

    Thirdly, I don't agree with the usual reasons for calling the property market under-priced or over-priced. Everyone looks at history and graphs, and compares the price change to inflation and other things.

    To me, a property cannot be called over-priced if the buyer meets all these conditions:

    1. You're very sure that you can afford to keep meeting repayments and to hold onto the property for the long-term.

    2. You're very sure that you will be financially better off in the long run owning the property than by renting -bearing in mind opportunity costs, if you're really good.

    (This includes, as per my article, a comparison between rent and mortgage paid over the decades, as well as all the other factors, such as having a property at the end of it and comparing other investments from savings made when paying lower rents.)

    If 2. is correct, how can the buyer of the property possibly call it "over-priced"? He/she knows he'll be financially better off therefore it is not over-priced. This more practical definition of "over-priced" stands even if, by your definition of over-priced (history/price change compared to real prices etc), the property market is 40% over-priced. It's all about what you pay versus what it's worth to you. This is the whole point I'm trying to make in my article.

    Before I move on, I'll just say that I have no opinion today of whether house prices are over- or under-priced by most people's definition, and I just don't care. I have no idea if house prices will fall tens of percent in the next year or so. I make no forecasts whatsoever. And I don't think anyone else should care about reading duck entrails either. All they should consider is: will this property at the price I can buy it for make me richer or poorer in the long run than if I carry on renting?

    bobmattfran, you go on to mention a lot of different issues, such as young people can't afford a deposit. Those are completely different issues that are nothing to do with my article, and which I couldn't possibly squeeze into it. (Although why any young person should feel entitled to such an expensive and valuable asset before they've worked hard for it for a long time is beyond me.)

    This was a very bizarre comment, bobmattfran: "So tell me the good news without any bias towards the Financial Services Industry or the Banks?"

    Do you think that I, or other writers on this website, actually like the financial services industry?

    Hi fnm500. You wrote:

    "Neil, I don't understand something: in the last box of your table comparing a home buyer versus a renter, the home buyer ends up with a major asset, but the renter does not. Why would this be the case, eventhough you have correctly (and repeatedly) mentioned in the previous 6 boxes of the table that the renter "could invest the difference". Wouldn't these investments have grown to a substantial asset of it's own?"

    Thanks for that. I should have made it clearer. Although the asset at the end of that table was just referring to the property (incorrectly), I did take into account investing the difference in all the important calcluations I did. The homeowner who gets a result of 1.5 should still expect to be far better off.

    Hi cen1egb

    You don't have that right. The average buyer can usually expect that, for the first decade or more of owning, they will pay higher mortgage costs than someone who rents.

    You also ask:

    "The comparison table is also based upon a home owner moving frequently & so having to regularly pay new mortgage set up & legal fees plus taxes. What about the comparison between being able to choose to stay in the same property for as long you desire versus the risk that a landlord can ask you to move out whenever they want?"

    In my calculations, I took into account costs for having to move several times as a renter too (all under the sorts of costs that come up with renting), precisely because renters are often kicked out or they need to move more often anyway, on average.

    I wouldn't say the comparison table is based on an owner moving "frequently", but perhaps a few times.

    Personally, I don't think most people should be buying a first property with a view to upgrading two or three times, but that's just what British and Northern Irish homebuyers seem to want to do.

    If you buy when/where your family is ready to settle down, you're no longer growing your family, and you're confident you're in an area/career where you'll be safe (or as safe as you think you can ever expect) then you should buy. All this moving around is pretty costly for homebuyers, in my opinion, and I think most who do this probably haven't really got their heads around the risks of negative equity.

    Finally, thanks happy man 1.

    Neil

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MouthyRob
    Love rating 14
    MouthyRob said

    What interest rate did you use to discount your cash-flows to Net Present Values?

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Archmage
    Love rating 0
    Archmage said

    One slight flaw, renting is never cheaper than a mortgage!

    Unless you are going for the bottom end of the market.

    Scenario

    I buy a house to rent, do I subsidise the rent out my own pocket for 15 years?

    No of course not, I charge the mortgage cost plus a bit for myself. Some people might call it exploitation, others call it business.

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • michael.davis@o2.co.uk
    Love rating 0
    michael.davis@o2.co.uk said

    Why would you buy a propery in the present climate if you want the best deal to secure your future?

    On the average 160k Loan you pay around 93k in Interest % over 25 years! Good luck to all those populists who are chasing this dream some on Interest only! encouraged by tabloid property tv programs.

    Most sensible people think current property to be over-cooked hence the market is in a state of flux despite the "sales pitch" from those with vested interests, add into the mix the following - EU refererendum and freedom of movement curtailed within the next few years there maybe a few empty properties lying in around the new sprawling estates

    which were created in response to the perceived housing crisis!

    Maybe renting is not such a big deal as it pays to have limited funds in retirement as the government want your asset to pay for your care home! which is a bit rich considering you have paid your taxes, paid for your house, paid for the social housing wasters, and paid again for pointless local authority schemes!

    Shares will always outperform property if you understand what you are embarking on sadly, some of those in the property game are deluded and believe this is a sure fire winner like backing Kauto Star.

    It will all end in tears...cuts need to be radical, taxes need to be raised and then the deficit might reduce! BTL and the banks wasted your money they really did! the whole eonomic cycle of asset class appreciation will be knocked on its head with the decade of pain to come.

    2061 and the deficit will be down to around 41% of GDP they say hopefully!

    Be prepared and be prepared for a government that will actually have the balls to implement some tough measures.

    Thank you

    Report on 13 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jonbar123
    Love rating 0
    jonbar123 said

    Interesting post and a couple of interesting points made as well. My basic rule of thumb is this- if you can buy a home whereby your monthly costs are not more than say 20% more than what it would cost to rent a similar property then you are better doing so. Even in very squeezed times, you would have to rent somewhere anyway costing close to what your

    Mortgage is so you are better to stick with mortgage.

    www.savememoneyni.com

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • levi_spurs
    Love rating 0
    levi_spurs said

    Everyone circumstances are different, I'm currently in the process of getting out of rented and moving into my first mortgage, for me its abit of a nobrainer as I was paying 575 in rent and my mortgage payments will onlt be 630 (380 of this is interest) so i will be rented for 380 in simplistic terms, this house is near enough the same as the one i was renting too so not having to downsize.

    Luckily enough I'm in the position where i can also overpay each month so can reduce my overall mortgage size whilst rates are generally lower.

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Spikus
    Love rating 24
    Spikus said

    Oh Dear, some people are clearly uninformed of what you can get in the rental market if you try.

    "Archmage said

    One slight flaw, renting is never cheaper than a mortgage!

    Unless you are going for the bottom end of the market.

    Scenario

    I buy a house to rent, do I subsidise the rent out my own pocket for 15 years?

    No of course not, I charge the mortgage cost plus a bit for myself. Some people might call it exploitation, others call it business."

    If you can explain to me how I am living in a 5 bed mansion for £1750 a month when the place is valued at around £1.4M then I would be interested to here how renting is never cheaper than a mortgage. A mortgage even at these silly rates is around £4700 minimum per month if I put down £400K as a deposit! Interest only is £2500 a month.

    With no bills to upkeep the property and almost no cost or restriction to move when we feel like it, it seems you are mistaken as to what renters can get if they look around and negotiate.

    Cheaper to own than rent.... not at all actually.

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Neil Faulkner
    Love rating 32
    Neil Faulkner said

    There have been quite a few comments from people who think that monthly rent for a property will always be higher than a mortgage. This is not true.

    Your monthly mortgage payments are likely to be far higher in the first years after you buy than if you rented the same property.

    Think about it like this. If you buy today, you're buying at today's house prices and mortgage prices. However, the average landlord will have bought their properties years ago, when house prices were lower. This means that their mortgage costs are far lower than yours would be if you were to buy the property off the landlord today. Hence, they can afford to charge lower rents than a new buyer today would pay in mortgage costs, and competition ensures that they do so.

    In addition, new landlords often have to make a loss after mortgage and maintenance costs for the first few years. It's not until rents have risen above all the costs that they start to make a profit.

    Neil (article author)

    Report on 08 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • babyhk
    Love rating 7
    babyhk said

    I think people will only start to buy when real living wage jobs are easier to find. There has been loads of new jobs created near me in the North West but sadly those jobs are in the new Asda , Poundland or Telesales paying under £8.00 and hour.My oldest son rents in Kent and travels daily to work in London as there seem to be few jobs round here to support his wife and their 3 under 5's.

    They also need to be mobile so ideally if somebody wand waves and there is a job round here he can literally be on the next bus.

    I think most people would love to buy but this country has changed in so many ways .

    Moving abroad is a sweeping statement .For me I tend to feel safe here , speak the lingo , have a fairly good grasp of the law and am fairly confident there won't be many extremes of weather that I can't cope with.

    Report on 10 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3