"Tim" wrote
A renter in the process of buying *is* a buyer.
Of course, during any 10-year period the return on renting versus buying will vary. My point is that most buyers refuse to see this at *any* time. Someone who rented in 1988 would be laughing 10 years later compared to someone who bought in 1988 - the latter would see minimal capital growth versus his outlay, while the latter would have been able to deposit all the money he'd saved at rates which had been as high as 15% at certain times.
Er, so between 1988 and 1998 that would have been a good deal, would it? I bought a London flat for 85k in '88, had it valued at 105k by the end of '88, and sold it for 105k in 1998. I lost thousands and thousands versus simply renting the place. I don't doubt that other such periods have occurred and are about to.
Well, it's not, is it? If you have to sell your place in a desirable area and move to a small place in a crummy area to access your gain, all you have done is monetised the difference in the market value of the two places. That's not a gain. You might as well argue that selling a Lexus and buying a bike is a gain. Either way, you've got less for less money, leaving some money over.
No, I'm considering both but at present I see loadsa downside and little upside for a long time.