≡ Menu

Reasons to buy a house instead of renting

UK houses are usually expensive to buy

The following guest post on the reasons to buy a house instead of renting is by Tejvan Pettinger from The Mortgage Guide UK.

The UK has one of the highest property owning rates in the world. No matter how many boom and busts we have, the British like the idea of buying their own house.

Part of the attraction is not just financial, but the sentiment of owning your own house, not worrying about having dodgy landlords, and being able to paint your walls whatever colour you want.

Owning a house does bring more responsibility. But unless we are frequently moving around the country, most people would buy if given the opportunity.

Yet, for first time buyers, the ratio of house prices to earnings means that it is very difficult to buy – unless you can borrow from The Bank of Mum and Dad or be helped by the UK State.

Is it really worth the effort, or are we better off renting? Does our sentimental attraction to buying our own castle make sense?

Let’s first consider the advantage of buying a property.

The end is in sight

A mortgage may last for 25 or 30 years. But there will eventually be an end to the mortgage payments, which means the hope of being able to live rent-free for your remaining years.

In this way, paying off a mortgage is similar to saving for a pension. If market rent is £800 a month, then finally paying off your mortgage will be the equivalent of saving that cost of renting.

With rising life expectancy, people are living longer. Therefore the benefit of paying off your mortgage is increasing, too . The old saying that ‘rent is dead money’ is true.

Of course, it depends how old you are, and how long you imagine you may live.

If you are 40-years old, getting a 30-year mortgage may not seem to give much benefit. But, if you live to 90 years, that would still be 20 years of rent free accommodation.

Rents also rise with inflation; often in the UK they rise faster than inflation.

What about fluctuating interest rates?

Interest rates are currently exceptionally low. The most likely scenario is for rates to increase to 5% in the medium to long term, though it is not a foregone conclusion – Japan has had zero rates for over a decade.

Clearly, affordability is being helped by these record low rates. When buying however you need to budget for rates of 5%, and bear in mind that rates have risen to over 10% in living memory.

You can experiment with a mortgage repayment calculator to see how the costs would vary with higher rates.

It may seem the prospect of base rates jumping from 0.25% to 5% would dramatically increase cost of mortgages, but many lenders have not passed on the full base rate cuts onto consumers. If base rates rise to 5%, the actual mortgage payment you pay is unlikely to go up as much.

As a rule of thumb, look at the cost of the longest fixed rate mortgage and not the variable mortgages.

Housing as investment

There are two types of house buyers. One type buys a house to live in rather than rent. The other type invests in property – usually via buy-to-let – hoping for an equity gain.

The first type, the average householder, is less affected by fluctuations in house prices. The key thing is the cost of mortgage payments and the other bills.

In contrast, the buy-to-let investor is much more concerned with gaining equity in addition to income. And that requires rising prices.

Forecasting UK house prices is a tricky business. The professionals often get it wrong, and some have actually given up trying to make house price predictions.

  • On the one hand, house price to earnings ratios are very high compared to previous decades and also compared to other countries.
  • On the other hand, the UK has a shortage of housing that is unlikely to be solved anytime soon. This shortage of housing compared to the number of households means property could continue to be attractive for the medium to long term.

Conclusion

It is worth looking at your local area, and considering how much you pay to rent versus how much would mortgage payments cost (assuming a good fixed rate mortgage).

In my own experience of living in Oxford in 2005, I tried very hard to buy. The reason was that renting was very expensive – around £800 a month plus bills. So I though why not pay £800 a month on a mortgage?

I borrowed from my parents and got a dodgy 2005 style self-certification mortgage. It was the best thing I ever did.

I couldn’t face prospect of paying £800 a month rent (that will continue to rise with inflation, if not more) when I retire, whereas mortgage payments will become a smaller percentage of income.

If I was an investor, considering whether to buy a second home, I would be much more circumspect. Equities or the bond market may offer a better rate of return.

Note: I have republished this post from the archives because the core reasons to buy a house versus renting haven’t changed, even as various parameters have arguably become more stretched. Be aware that some of the older reader comments might now be dated, however. On the other hand, that does provide interesting context to this timeless back-and-forth! 🙂

{ 54 comments }
Weekend reading: Five things you need to know about active funds post image

Good reads from around the Web.

You know that most active funds fail to beat the market. I know that most active funds fail to beat the market.

And all our fondly farewell-ed readers who got the message, bought a one-shot passive indexing product instead, and then went off to read about 20 Stars Who You Won’t Believe Commune With The Dead Using A Ouija Board knew it, too.

But plenty of people don’t, so I guess we’ll keep repeating it. It’s a bit late to change lanes!

So here’s the same message in a new video featuring Professor David Blake from Cass Business School, courtesy of The Evidence-Based Investor:

[continue reading…]

{ 10 comments }
Weekend reading: Merryn says it’s time to sell your sacred final salary pension post image

Good reads from around the Web.

Merryn Somerset-Webb might be the nearest thing we have to a punk writer on personal finance.

The FT columnist and editor of MoneyWeek has made a career out of provocative calls – not all of which turned out to be right, but most of which at least made you think.

This week she’s taken another sacred cow out back for a butchering, arguing it’s time to sell out of defined benefit pension schemes.

She writes in this weekend’s FT [Search result]:

Imagine you had invested in something back in 2009 and it had returned 25 per cent every year for the past seven years — a total return of about 480 per cent.

Then imagine that the value of that investment was 100 per cent linked to the bond market.

What would you do?

She’d sell it, she says, and she goes through the maths to show why.

Provocative stuff. I’m a humble blogger, not an FT columnist , and yet I’d be reticent about breaking this great taboo.

But Merryn is fearless – it’s time for her friend to cash in his defined benefit scheme for £300,000 she reckons:

Is his transfer value now so high that it is worth selling?

I think it is.

The first thing to say is that the price is very unlikely ever to be higher than 40 times the income.

Instinct tells you that’s a bubble price and, if the pace of the rise in the transfer value alone isn’t enough to scream “bubble trouble” at you, any proper analysis of the bond market has been telling you the same thing for a few years now.

What do you think? What’s Somerset-Webb missing?

(Do read the article before answering, as she goes through several scenarios. And clearly “you sell out, put it into shares, and then we turn into Japan” will be a counter-argument to almost any investment decision…)

[continue reading…]

{ 72 comments }
A section of a painting of a woman with a crystal ball, by John William Waterhouse

Before buying a TV or a toaster, I check out the reviews. Of course I take them with a pinch of salt. But if a few sources give one model a high rating and say another is better used for scrap, that’s meaningful.

In the wacky and weird world of investing, this approach can lead you astray.

A reader asked us:

Do you know why the Vanguard FTSE INDEX Fund is only rated as 2 Stars?

This reader is doing his or her research, and it’s a sensible-sounding question.

And they seem to be sensibly questioning what we write, too.

The question was in response to our latest Slow & Steady model portfolio update. Several Vanguard index funds are in that mix.

Now, I’m not sure exactly which tracker fund the reader is referring to. The fund name they have given us is too short.

We can see Vanguard is the fund provider. FTSE is the index provider. And ‘Index’ tardily confirms that yes it’s an index fund – but we’d need more to know which specific fund.

Superficially, this matters. One Vanguard ‘FTSE index fund’ in the model portfolio has a five-star rating at Morningstar. Another has a four-star rating.

But perhaps the reader was referring to one we don’t use, the Vanguard FTSE U.K. All Share Index Unit Trust Accumulation Fund. This mouthful does sport a two-star rating.

No matter. From the perspective of a passive investor, you can ignore these ratings altogether.

Stars in their eyes

According to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) 2016 report into the asset management industry:

The Morningstar Star rating is a quantitative, risk-adjusted comparison of historical fund performance net of costs.

The methodology is applied to active and index tracker funds, and makes no distinction between them.

We have found that the methodology used to generate this rating means that index-tracker funds are likely to be assigned an average rating and generally only a minority of these receive a high rating.

So index trackers are more likely to get average ratings.

Eek! This might sound like a reason to use active funds. But let’s pause for a moment before we wheelbarrow our money down to The City’s bonfires.

For starters, there’s copious evidence the average active fund underperforms the market after fees.

One landmark UK study found over 70% of active funds failed to beat their benchmarks over ten years. A more recent US study (cited by the Financial Times) showed 99% of actively managed US equity funds underperform.

Assigning index funds ‘average’ ratings when most active funds underperform seems a stretch.

Then again, the system rates funds against funds, not mere benchmarks.

So sure, the average fund is average. But what if the top-rated funds – the five-star funds – did beat the benchmarks? Wouldn’t index funds then be justly consigned to average status, and shouldn’t we all buy five-star active funds?

Maybe, but that isn’t the world we live in.

According to the FCA:

We have performed an analysis to compare the performance of 5-star rated share classes with non-5-star rated share classes.

We found that 5-star share classes do not significantly outperform benchmarks net of charges; net-of-fees excess returns above benchmarks; this means that after charges the returns above the benchmarks are statistically indistinguishable from zero.

There’s a lot of long words there. The important ones are: “statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

The five-star funds do not beat their benchmarks over the periods studied.

Morningstar recently admitted as much, with the FT reporting:

Morningstar, a UK fund rating agency, said its rated funds on average had not outperformed their sector benchmarks net of fees since the financial crisis.

So no reason to swap cheap index funds for expensive active funds, after all.

Now before anyone at Morningstar throws in the towel and takes up gardening, their ratings are not completely useless. If you’re an active investor they may be worth a look.

The FCA found that over periods of three and five years:

“The difference in net excess returns between 5-star rated share classes and not-5-star rated share classes is positive and significant.

Therefore although, on average, 5-star rated funds did not outperform their benchmarks, 5-star rated funds performed better than not-5-star rated funds.”

If you’re dead set on active funds, it’s worth knowing the top-rated funds did better on average. (For its part Morningstar says a review should also consider longer time periods.)

But what the FCA report seems to be dancing past is that five-star funds don’t beat the market. See the earlier comments I cited.

Which means fewer-than-five star funds presumably do worse than the market.

Which begs the question: Why take a chance on active funds at all?

Best Buys: A relative term

One reason might be because you’ve been encouraged into active funds by Best Buy lists and other promotions by platforms.

Oops! You best sit down. The FCA has some unfortunate news.

Firstly, such lists only offer a token nod towards passive index funds. The FCA found that’s better than in the old days; before 2014 no passives featured on any lists it studied.

But still, representation remains woeful:

Table showing passives are under-represented on Best Buy lists.

The FCA looked at the lists of five platforms.

Source: FCA

For a passivista this table makes grim reading. We know index funds do better than active on average but they make up less than 10% of the Best Buy entries.

Storm the metaphorical Bastille!

Easy tiger. Perhaps passive funds aren’t on the lists because they identify superior active funds?

A market-beating active fund would be better to own than an index fund that lagged the market by costs. Maybe the Best Buy lists are the fabled treasure maps that show the way?

Ha ha, only kidding. According to the FCA report:

“…we note that after costs even these funds have not outperformed their benchmarks.”

No treasure here then.

Now, as with the Morningstar ratings the Best Buy lists are not entirely useless. The FCA found that funds on the lists did do better than funds not on the list.

But that doesn’t change the wider point. If even the Best Buys don’t outperform, why gamble on them when you can get the market return from index funds?

If they knew better most investors wouldn’t risk it.

Cheap is usually best

The FCA paints a picture of investors being steered towards active funds for no good reason.

You see the same thing in newspaper and magazine articles.

I’m loathe to name names – our own website is hardly without faults and biases. But for instance one big publication’s podcast always runs through a laundry list of active funds to end its discussions. Passives are rarely if ever name-checked.

Okay, so if the media, the ratings and the Best Buys lists aren’t doing the greatest job, how should you pick a fund?

Well, we think most people are best off deciding to go passive. Once you’ve made that decision you can run through the selection process we’ve described before.

For shares you might simply choose a good world index tracker fund. Indeed you might be best going for an all-in passive product like the LifeStrategy funds.

If you had to look at just one metric, then rather than ratings or Best Buy lists you’d do better looking at fund fees.

According to an article by Russel Kinnel of Morningstar:

We’ve done this over many years and many fund types, and expense ratios consistently show predictive power.

Using expense ratios to choose funds helped in every asset class and in every quintile from 2010 to 2015.

There’s even a compelling graphic showing how well lower cost fees perform:

Table showing how low fund fees may predict success

The ‘success ratio’ here means a fund staying open and outperforming their group.

Source: Morningstar

Of course all this data does is steer us into index funds via another route. In theory equally cheap active funds would be candidates for consideration. But in the UK costs don’t compare and it’s hard to see how they ever could on a long-term basis.

Aim average, do better

Investing is a matter of choices. Most people have no business striving to outperform the benchmarks, given the poor odds. They should choose to get broad exposure to markets via index funds as per their long-term plan.

But if you do want to try to beat the market with active funds, remember the odds of success are low. You’re unlikely to keep your money in the few market-beating funds. And the maths of high fees is always against you.

To illustrate, the FCA found that:

“[Over 20 years] an investor in a typical low cost passive fund would earn £9,455 (24.8%) more on a £20,000 investment than an investor in a typical active fund, and this number could rise to £14,439 (44.4%) once transaction costs have been taken into account.”

That’s a massive differential. Why compete in a worse than zero sum game? Why not let someone else buy an expensive fund manager his sports car?

Well, it’s a free world and good luck if you must try. Fund ratings and Best Buy lists might offer some starting points for research in that case.

But for passive investors, they are best ignored.

{ 12 comments }