Is a home an asset or liability?

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by anthonyk

Actually, it's an asset because someone would give you money for it if you sold it. Totally independent of what you might owe on it.

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Even if it wasn't, it's still an asset.

Your bike is an asset, and your loan on it is a liability. They both exist simultaneously. Your bike isn't prevented from being an asset just because you have a liability (loan) on it.

I get that, I'm pretty clear on the black and white definitions of asset v liability. I was trying to understand the definition as t-rock had it explained to him, or at least clear up what I think they were trying to tell him.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by t-rock

When you buy a home, you take on the house as an asset and the mortgage and related fees as liabilities. I think we all agree on this. Which one out-weighs the other in long term and/or short term?

Too many factors.......Your interest rate, how much you spend maintaining/fixing it, how much it appreciates (if at all).........And how much you could have made by investing that money in other things instead.

Long term (30+ years), the stock market makes a better return than real estate does.

But, when you're approaching retirement, do you really want to be still renting, with nothing to show for all the rent you paid?

[t-homo]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Too many factors.......Your interest rate, versus how much it appreciates (if at all).........How much you could have made by investing that money in other things instead.

Long term (30+ years), the stock market makes a better return than real estate does.

But, when you're approaching retirement, do you really want to be still renting, with nothing to show for all that money you spent?

Are you including rental properties in that assessment?

Renting is the absolute worst as far as long term goes.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by t-rock

Are you including rental properties in that assessment?

Yes if you're just talking about the VALUE of those properties.......But if you're including the rental income you get from them as well, that's a different story.

[t-homo]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Yes if you're just talking about the VALUE of those properties.......But if you're including the rental income you get from them as well, that's a different story.

When I talk about a house or property, i consider everything included with it. Property, rent from that property, mortgage, upkeep and maintenance, property taxes, etc.

[derf]

Its a liability until it is paid off, then it becomes an asset

[Homeslice]

When I talk about a house or property, i consider everything included with it. Property, rent from that property, mortgage, upkeep and maintenance, property taxes, etc.

Well, cashflow and appreciation are different things.......But sure, rental property is a good investment.........But I don't think it makes sense to own any until after you get a home for yourself first.

Originally Posted by derf

Its a liability until it is paid off, then it becomes an asset

It's always an asset. If you can sell it to someone, even if for just $1, it's an asset.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by t-rock

Ok so I guess the question I was trying to get at is a little more complex.


When you buy a home, you take on the house as an asset and the mortgage and related fees as liabilities. I think we all agree on this. Which one out-weighs the other in long term and/or short term?

As has already been stated it can only be measured by each individual transaction and a true judgment would require knowledge of the future.

For those who bought an "overpriced" house with a shitty mortgage the mortgage will probably outweigh the house. For those who are grabbing "under priced" houses now with fixed mortgages at 4-5% interest the house will probably outweigh the mortgage. That is dependent on real estate rebounding at some point, the first group selling at a loss and the second group selling at a profit.

To clarify my "knowledge of the future" comment, any losses or gains are theoretical until another transaction happens (the loss or gain is "realized" at that point). To illustrate, a couple people I knew in the late 90s were buying tech stocks on margin during the tech boom (against my advice). At first they were doing great and talking about how much money they were making, and how much money I was missing out on. When the "tech bubble" burst they both had margin calls and lost all the money they had invested in a period of 1-2 months. Before the bubble burst it was a good idea. Afterwords, not so much.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

It's always an asset. If you can sell it to someone, even if for just $1, it's an asset.

What about that cookie I sold for a penny

lolz

[Amber Lamps]

Are you talking profit and loss? IMHO as the a non-homeowner has always been that a house is a liability(loss)... bear with me, guys. You will almost never realize an actual profit from the sale of a house except in certain unusual circumstances.

If you buy a house for $100,000, have a 5% loan and pay to term, you will have paid over $300,000. Will you be able to sell your 30 years older house for over $300,000? Unlikely.

In that 30 years you will pay for upkeep, new roof every 5-10 years, paint, flooring, repairs, appliances, yard work/tools, etc. At least another $50,000 or more. Are you ever going to see that money again? Nope.

What if the neighborhood goes to shit? Can you just pick up and move with the max loss being under $1,000? Hahahaha yeah right.

I personally like renting, I pay $600 per month to live here total or $7200 per year vs almost double that for a house. Of course after that 30 years is up, the home owner will have a house and I won't have shit... except most likely, his wife will have a house either through divorce or death. Me I'll either have $100,000+ more shit or if I invest that money, $2-300,000 in the bank. Hmmm.... Oh well, at least his kids will have something to fight over after he's dead.