Effective returns on investment in housing vs other financial instruments
Then at the end, if you decide to cash in your house, you can roll the   proceeds into a fancier house to avoid paying taxes on your profit. The problem is that the book was written in 1989. That comment is no longer true; that part of the tax law changed in the 1990's. Also in 1989 the maximum amount that person could put in an IRA was $2,000 and hadn't been raised for almost a decade and wouldn't be raised for another decade. Roth accounts didn't exist; nor did HSA's or 529's. Most people didn't have a 401K. You are asking to compare what options we have today compared to what was available in the late 1980's.  For me except, for the years 2001-2005 and 2010-2015, the period from 1988 until now has had flat real estate values. Still the current values haven't returned to the peak in 2005. The score is 11 great years, 17 flat or negative. I know many people who during the 1990's had a zero return on their real estate. Thinking of personal residence as investment is how we got the bubble and crash in housing prices, and the Great Recession. There is no guarantee that a house will appreciate, or even retain value. It's also an extremely illiquid item; selling it, especially if you're seeking a profit, can take a year or more. ' Housing is not guaranteed to appreciate constantly, or at all. Tastes change and renovations rarely pay for themselves. Things wear out and have costs. Neighborhoods change in popularity. Without rental income and the ability to write off some of the costs as business expense, it isn't clear the tax advantage closes that gap, especislly as the advantage is limited to the taxes upon your mortgage interest (by deducting that from AGI).  If this is the flavor of speculation you want to engage in, fine, but I've seen people screw themselves over this way and wind up forced to sell a house for a loss. By all means hope your home will be profitable, count it as part of your net wealth... but generally Lynch is wrong here, or at best oversimplified. A house can be an investment (or perhaps more accurately a business), or your home, but -- unless you're renting out the other half of a duplex,which splits the difference -- trying to treat it as both is dangerous accounting. The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.
Those are the three books that were considered fundamental at my university: Investments - Zvi Bodie (Author), Alex Kane (Author), Alan Marcus (Author), Stylianos Perrakis (Author), Peter Ryan (Author) This book covers the basics of financial markets. It explains how markets work, general investing principles, basic risk notions, various types of financial instruments and their characteristics and portfolio management principles. Futures and Options markets - John C. Hull This book goes more in depth into derivatives valuation and the less common / more complex instruments. The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities This books covers fixed income securities. In all cases, they are not specifically math-oriented but they do not shy away from it when it is called for. I have read the first and the other two were recommended by professors / friends now working in financial markets. "Pete and Noah addressed the math, showing how this is, in effect, converting a 30yr to a ~23yr mortgage, at a cost, plus payment about 8% higher (1 extra payment per year). No magic there. The real issue, as I see it, is whether this is the best use of the money. Keep in mind, once you pay extra principal, which in effect is exactly what this is, it's not easy to get it back. As long as you have any mortgage at all, you have the need for liquidity, enough to pay your mortgage, tax, utilities, etc, if you find yourself between jobs or to get through any short term crisis.  I've seen people choose the ""sure thing"" prepayment VS the ""risky"" 401(k) deposit. Ignoring a match is passing up a 50% or 100% return in most cases. Too good to pass up.  2 points to add - I avoided the further tangent of the tax benefit of IRA/401(k) deposits. It's too long a discussion, today's rate for the money saved, vs the rate on withdrawal. Worth considering, but not part of my answer. The other discussion I avoid is Nicholas' thoughts on the long term market return of 10% vs today's ~4% mortgage rate. This has been debated elsewhere and morphs into a ""pre-pay vs invest"" question." "If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word ""saving"" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline." If your house was paid off, would you be comfortable borrowing from the equity to invest? This is essentially the same question.  Also, why not ask the opposite? How much more should you be borrowing (at a similar rate) for investments? Your answer to both questions will be clues to how you view the risk/reward of borrowing against your house in order to invest. My personal preference is not to invest with borrowed money. There may be a few percent of potential returns I am missing out on. That percent return has to be analyzed in the context of a full financial plan and future goals. Besides the long-term concern about which is cheaper, which has already been addressed by other answers, consider your risk exposure. Owning property has financial risks associated with it, just like owning stocks or bonds. The risk-related downsides of owning a home as an asset include: The risk-related upsides of owning a home as an asset include: Taking on some risk can save you (or earn you) money in the long run (that's why people buy risky stocks, after all) but consider how well you're equipped to handle that risk before you rush out to buy on a naive analysis of what's cheaper. Investing in property hoping that it will gain value is usually foolish; real estate increases about 3% a year in the long run.  Investing in property to rent is labor-intensive; you have to deal with tenants, and also have to take care of repairs.  It's essentially getting a second job. I don't know what the word pension implies in Europe; in America, it's an employer-funded retirement plan separate from personally funded retirement.  I'd invest in personally funded retirement well before buying real estate to rent, and diversify my money in that retirement plan widely if I was within 10-20 years of retirement. The advantage of interest only mortgages is that they can increase your cashflow as you are only paying the interest and not any part of the principle. We have most of our investment loans on interest only for 10 years. When we got the loans about 6 to 7 years ago our LVR was only 60% and the property prices have increased by about 40% in that time. We also place our excess cashflow into offset accounts linked to the investment loans, so there is extra cash available in case things go bad. The disadvantage of interest only mortgages is that you are not paying off any principal for the length of the interest only period. If you are over extended this could cause problems as you need to rely totally on the price of the property going up for your equity to increase. As you are currently paying mortgage insurance leads me to believe your LVR is above 80%, so you would not have much equity available in your home. With an interest only loan this could pose you some problems. You should never try to over extend yourself, the slightest thing that goes wrong could get you into financial troubles. Always try to have some buffer to help you stay on your feet if circumstances do change for the worst. "You're hearing alot of talk about housing (and by implication property) not being an investment today because on the downside of a market, the conventional wisdom is to be negative about buying things that have lost value. Just as it was dumb to listen to your coworker about hot .Com IPOs in 1999, it's dumb to listen to the real estate naysayers now. Here's another question along a similar vein: Were stocks a good investment in the spring of 2009?  The conventional wisdom said: ""No, stocks are scary! Buy T-Bills or Gold Bullion!"". The people who made money said: ""Wait a second, Goldman Sachs is down like 75%? IBM is down like 30%, are they going anywhere? Time to buy."" The wrong house is a poor investment in any economy. Buying a house in Detriot in 1970 was not a good move. Buying a house that needs $50k in work, not a good move. Buying a condo with a bankrupt HOA in Florida is not a good idea. But a good house that is well cared for is a great investment.  I'm living in a house right now that is 80 years old, well maintained and affordable on a single income. A similar home a few blocks away sold in May for the same price as we paid in 2006. I'm paying about 20% less than I would for an apartment, and we'll think about moving in 2016 or 2017, by which time I'll probably have put $30-50k into the house. (Roof, kitchen, exterior painting, minor renovation)"