Quote:
|
Riiiiiiight. You sell for a loss and then you buy for a loss. You forgot the part where you have that extra $150k that you still have to pay back to the bank.
|
You missed my point. If you sell at the low you buy at the low. Therefore the new house will rise in price as the market has always done. Your imaginary 30% drop of 150k is an extreme situation where you are forced to buy at the high and sell at the low. Presuming you still need shelter you buy in at the market at the low and conditions improve. You then sell at a loss, break even or increase. So your loss isn't the full 150k, presuming the market drops your 30%. If you happen to need your new home for a long period of time your home value increases.
Your mind is limited because you are commanding the definitions of the marketplace assuming people don't need their homes and also that they must list and sell them and the bottom of valuation. You are like that guy in science class that is pushing your hypothesis without considering the data. Yes, things can get bad, but for the most part home ownership and saving are better than not. And guess what, people need their homes.
The renter is simply paying interest without accruing capital or savings to the capital owner. Where as an owner is contributing to their own savings while being having the ability to use the market to their advantage.
If I had listened to your advice when I was 20 I would have never bought anything in Calgary. Bungalows were 180-220 in nice communities. My parents nay-sayed the prices. They reminded me the crash in the late 70's early 80's.
Instead I bought the best piece of property I could with the money I had saved and did well. I would hate for your advice to translate to any young people that were thinking of carving out their place in the world.
While waiting and timing are a virtue, buying something that is your home and you can live with for a longer period of time is a better way to go.