How do I determine how much rent I could charge for a property or location?
This may not be entirely scientific, but as a landlord my usual approach is just to do a search for rental properties on Craigslist for comparable homes in the neighborhood. There are all kinds of formulas professional property managers use, but in the end these listings are the ones you are going to be competing with for tenants. Also, it isn't super accurate, but online services like Zillow.com can give you some numbers for rental houses that include those that aren't currently advertising. Check out the property websites to get an idea of how much, the property in question, could yield as rent. Most give a range and you can get a good idea of it. Just one example from zoopla. Likewise you can refer mouseprice or rightmove and get yourself an idea. Property websites do a lot of data crunching to do an update, but their figure is only a guide. Zoopla may not always accurately reflect the market price. Your best bet is to get a quote for local registered) letting agents. That way you know you are close to the real market value. Also, these quotes may come into handy if you have a mortgage on the property. Since most banks will require you to provide proof of rent figures you are projecting by sending in official quotes. Hope this helps.. A good way to find the rates of rental prices is to look what other landlords are charging for similar properties in your area. The proper investigation of property rental market should be make by using property listing platforms.  The other method is online rent calculator. There are a bunch of them on the Web. Briefly speaking, the rent calculator uses industry data to look at the typical rent you might expect from a property in a post code. Remember that the rent you charge has to be at least equal to the cost of your monthly mortgage bill. When you’re deciding what to charge, don’t forget to factor in an estimate of repair costs, taxes, homeowners association fees and insurance.
You should absolutely go for it, and I encourage you to look for multi-unit (up to 4) properties if there are any in your area.  With nulti-unit properties it is far more common than not that the other units pay the mortgage. To comment on your point about slowly building an asset if the renter covers the payment; that's true, but you're also missing the fact that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes, that's another great benefit. If you intend to make a habit out of being a landlord, I highly encourage you to use a property management company.  Most charge less than 10% and will handle all of the tough stuff for you, like:  fielding sob stories from tenants, evicting tenants, finding new tenants, checking to make sure the property is maintained...  It's worth it. There fees are also tax-deductible... It makes a boat load of sense.  Just look at the world around you.  How many wealthy people rent???  I've met one, but they own investment properties though... "Even if the price of your home did match inflation or better — and that's a question I'll let the other answers address — I propose that owning a home, by itself, is not a sufficient hedge against inflation. Consider: Inflation will inflate your living expenses. If you're lucky, they'll inflate at the average. If you're unlucky, a change in your spending patterns (perhaps age-related) could result in your expenses rising faster than inflation. (Look at the sub-indexes of the CPI.) Without income also rising with inflation (or better), how will you cope with rising living expenses? Each passing year, advancing living expenses risk eclipsing a static income. Your home is an illiquid asset. Generally speaking, it neither generates income for you, nor can you sell only a portion. At best, owning your principal residence helps you avoid a rent expense and inflation in rents — but rent is only one of many living expenses. Some consider a reverse-mortgage an option to tap home equity, but it has a high cost. In other words: If you don't want to be forced to liquidate [sell] your home, you'll also need to look at ways to ensure your income sources rise with inflation. i.e. look at your cash flow, not just your net worth. Hence: investing in housing, as in your own principal residence, is not an adequate hedge against inflation. If you owned additional properties to generate rental income, and you retained pricing power so you could increase the rent charged at least in line with inflation, your situation would be somewhat improved — except you would, perhaps, be adopting another problem: Too high a concentration in a single asset class. Consequently, I would look at ways other than housing to hedge against inflation. Consider other kinds of investments. ""Safe as houses"" may be a cliché, but it is no guarantee." I think the mortgage must not be in the equation at all in order to determine how much to charge. Of course you want to cover your mortgage but the renting price is determined only by how much the renter is willing to pay (offer and demand) and not your mortgage (some people don't even have a mortgage). In other words I think you should be charging a price based on similar rented houses. I assume having real estate in a good popular city is much more secure way of keeping money than having it in a bank account Not at all!  Many things can go wrong with rental property. Renters can be late on rent, they can cause damage to property, you can have unexpected repairs. I'm not saying that you should just let it sit, but rental property is not risk-free my any means. Are you prepared to be a landlord as a part time job (for 500/mo?).  Rental property is not passive income - it takes work to maintain.  You can outsource this to a property manager, but that eats into the 500/mo that you are estimating). I want to stay flexible and have a possibility to change my location whenever I want. That's a perfectly reasonable reason not to buy a home, but what will you do with the rental when you move? It will still need maintenance, you'll still need to interact with renters, etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, but I get the feeling that you are not fully aware of the risks involved in rental properties. Surely the yield should be Yield = (Rent - Costs) / Downpayment ? As you want the yield relative to your capital not to the property value. As for the opportunity cost part you could look at the risk free rate of return you could obtain, either through government bonds or bank accounts with some sort of government guarantee (not sure what practical terms are for this in Finland). The management fee is almost 30% of your rent, what does this cover? Is it possible to manage the property yourself, as this would give you a much larger cushion between rent and expenses. You're biting off a lot. Let's say you can swing 5% for a down payment: $13k.  A 30-year loan on $247k at the rate you quote gives you a payment of $1,270 per month. This does not include taxes, insurance, or private mortgage insurance (which you'll pay because you have a down payment less than 20%).  The PMI will run you about $150-$200 per month, I think, until your loan-to-value ratio falls below 80%. Plus your HOA fee, utilities, your 401(k) loan payment, etc., you're pushing $2k/month. You have a roommate in mind, and that will help, but the roommate can go, and you still own the property.  Then you get the whole payment all to yourself. If I had the option, I'd rent a little longer.  Save up for a decent down payment, and shop around for someone who is desperate to sell. They are two different animals. When you rent you are purchasing a service.  The landlord, as your service provider, has to make a profit, pay employees to do maintenance, and buy materials. The price of these things will increase with inflation, and that rolls into your rent price. Taxes also are passed to the tenant, and those tend to only go upward. Market forces of supply/demand will drive fluctuation of prices as well, as other posts have described. When you buy, you are purchasing just the asset - the home. This price will also be driven by supply/demand in the market, but don't try to compare it to buying a service. Cheers! "The way to resolve your dilemma is to consult the price-to-rent ratio of the property. According to smartasset.com: The price-to-rent ratio is a measure of the relative affordability of renting and buying in a given housing market. It is calculated as the ratio of home prices to annual rental rates. So, for example, in a real estate market where, on average, a home worth $200,000 could rent for $1000 a month, the price-rent ratio is 16.67. That’s determined using the formula: $200,000 ÷ (12 x $1,000). Smartasset.com also goes on to give a table comparing different cities' price-to-rent ratio and then claim that the average price-to-rent ratio is currently 19.21. If your price-to-rent ratio is lower than 19.21, then, yes, your rents are more expensive than the average house. Smartasset.com claims that a high price-to-rent ratio is an argument in favor of tenants ""renting"" properties while a low price-to-rent ratio favors people ""buying"" (either to live in the property or to just rent it out to other people). So let's apply the price-to-rent ratio formula towards the properties you just quoted. There's a specific house I could buy for 190 (perhaps even less) that rents for exactly 2000 / month. 190K/(2000 * 12) = 7.92 There's a house for sale asking 400 (been on the market 2 yrs! could probably get for 350) which rents for 2800 /month.  (400K)/(2800*12) = 11.90 (350K)/(2800*12) = 10.42 One can quite easily today buy a house for 180k-270k that would rent out for 1700-2100 / month.  Lower Bound: (180K)/(1700*12) = 8.82 Upper Bound: (270K)/(2100*12) = 10.71 Even so, the rental returns here seem ""ridiculously high"" to me based on other markets I've noticed. Considering how the average price-to-rent ratio is 19.21, and your price-to-rent ratio ranges from 7.92 to 11.90, you are indeed correct. They are indeed ""ridiculously high"". Qualification: I was involved in real estate, and used the price-to-rent ratio to determine how long it would take to ""recover"" a person's investment in the property. Keep in mind that it's not the only thing I care about, and obviously the price-to-rent ratio tends to downplay expenses involved in actually owning properties and trying to deal with periods of vacancy. There's also the problem of taking into account demand as well. According to smartasset.com, Detroit, MI has the lowest price-to-rent ratio (with 6.27), which should suggest that people should buy properties immediately in this city. But that's probably more of a sign of people not wanting to move to Detroit and bid up the prices of properties. EDIT: I should also say that just because the properties are ""ridiculously expensive"" right now doesn't mean you should expect your rents to decrease. Rather, if rents keep staying at their current level, I'd predict that the property values will slowly increase in the future, thereby raising the price-to-rent ratio to 'non-ridiculous' mode."