Homeownership doesn't build wealth, study finds

• Households are better off taking control of their finances than relying on fluctuating home values.
• The homeownership rate is still hovering near its record low, yet demand has been steadily rising.
• Nationwide, since the recession, there have been two distinct housing markets.

The question of rent versus buy has been wildly popular during the housing recovery. The historic housing crash at the end of the last decade came as a bitter shock to millions of Americans, many of whom never considered that home values could fall at all or that they could fall as far as they did.

The U.S. homeownership rate is still hovering near its record low, yet buyer demand has been steadily rising. Construction, however, has not been rising quickly enough to meet that demand, resulting in fast-rising prices. In the last few years, prices have increased faster than income and inflation.

In some markets, home values have hit record highs, again fueling the debate over which is more lucrative, buying or renting?

Rents have also increased dramatically, as new households are formed and millennials, now the largest generation, struggle to afford a downpayment. While there has been a building boom in luxury rental housing, that has not been the case with affordable rental development.

Still, researchers in the study claim the old adage of "throwing your money away on rent," doesn't hold up. That is because it assumes that the extra money a renter saves by not owning a home and not saving for a downpayment is simply spent on goods or services and not invested.

"When you assume that those monies are reinvested at a rate of return, renting, on average, wins in terms of wealth creation," Johnson said. "Of course, many renters will not reinvest those monies and will instead use them for consumer goods, which is the least desirable option in terms of building wealth."

In other words, the rent argument only works if the renter invests the rental savings rather than consuming it.

Johnson and his colleagues also assessed price volatility. Some local housing markets, like Miami and New York City, are far more volatile than Kansas City or even Atlanta. The researchers therefore went city by city, measuring home price appreciation against a portfolio of stocks and bonds that were equal in volatility.

"To have a fair race, that reinvestment into stocks and bonds has to be as risky as that particular housing market," Johnson said.

While all housing has always been local, home price performance has been especially so following the recession. In the nation's 24 largest metropolitan housing markets, just four showed median home price appreciation between 2010 and 2016 that was higher than the median return of a stock portfolio, according to a report by Redfin, done in November 2016.

Three of those four were in Northern California, and the fourth was Miami. All four rank high among real estate investors, especially foreign investors, not owner occupants.

Nationally, since the recession, there have been two distinct housing markets.

"The first is the one that gets all the attention, where high prices, low inventory and strong buyer demand is supported by dirt cheap rates and high job creation and income growth," said Nela Richardson, Redfin's chief economist.

"The second market is in parts of the country [Trump country] where home prices never took off, unemployment is still high and wages are stagnating," Richardson said. "Prices aren't growing quickly in these places and there's been little home equity growth. The housing market mirrors the growing economic inequality in the country at large: Rich metros grow, poor ones don't."

When you consider that many Americans are not invested in the stock market, "the forced savings of a monthly mortgage is a key reason why housing has served as an engine of growth for the middle class over the last 50 years," Richardson added.

As long as home values don't fall, which has historically been the case in most markets, with the glaring exception of the last recession, homeowners are building a nest egg. They had also been getting a tax advantage. That is now at risk in the Republican tax plan, which curbs the mortgage deduction and in the Senate version, wipes out the property tax deduction.

Real estate can still be a good investment, according to Johnson, but not necessarily living in the home you own. Being a landlord or investing in real estate-related stocks and commodities can be more lucrative that keeping all your capital in the nest.

Single-family rentals — either detached homes or townhomes — are developing faster than any other portion of the housing market. These rentals outpace both single-family home purchases and apartment-style living, according to the Urban Institute.

“Almost all the housing demand in recent years has been filled by rental units,” says Sara Strochak, a research assistant with the Urban Institute. She also states that single-family rentals have gone up 30% within the last three years.

This change is unique to newer generations. But when did rentals become so popular? And why are people more inclined to rent than to buy? Below, we’ll further discuss the rise in rentals and how it affects the housing market.

When did the rise in single-family rentals start?

The housing bubble collapse and the recession that followed shattered the decades-old tenet of American wisdom that you can’t go wrong buying a home. Most of the housing market fallout from the Great Recession has finally receded — foreclosures and underwater mortgages are back to traditional levels and housing values have recovered in most places. But one thing hasn’t recovered: Americans’ unquestioned desire to own a home.

Today, single-family rental homes and townhomes make up 35% of the country’s 44 million rental units, compared to 31% in 2006.

Who is leading this trend?

Millennials are leading the way to single-family rentals, and myriad factors contribute to this trend. Many young adults aren’t in a hurry to lay down roots, whether they’re prone to traveling or simply aren’t ready to commit to one area or one home. Student loans and stagnant incomes can also make it harder to save up for a down payment. And it’s inevitable that young people who came of age during the housing bubble would be reluctant to take a leap of faith and commit to a 30-year mortgage.

“While the age distribution of the U.S. population suggests most millennials are reaching the age of household formation and demand for single-family homes, much of this demand is likely to be channeled into the rental market,” says Strochak.

Are only Millennials affected?

However, it’s not just young people. Americans over 55 have also grown more interested in renting. According to RENTCafé, the number of renters aged over 55 has grown by a whopping 28% between 2009 and 2015. Many of them want to rent homes instead of apartments. From 2010 to 2016, single-family rental households in the US increased by nearly 2 million—1.26 million of those renters were 34 to 65 years old, while just under a half million were 65 or older, according to a RENTCafé Census data analysis provided by Adrian Rosenberg. In places like Miami, Houston, and Minneapolis, more than two-thirds of new single-family renters were over 65.

That's primarily because of a proposed change to a popular mortgage interest deduction for new homeowners.

What led to this trend?

When did home renting become so popular? The trend began with large firms buying up cheap homes during the recession and turning them into cash-generating rentals—often rented by families who’d lost their own homes or who could no longer qualify for mortgages. Institutional investors, which are organizations like banks, hedge funds, and mutual funds, gobbled up millions of single-family homes that fell into foreclosure. In Phoenix, for example, the total of single-family homes occupied by homeowners—instead of renters—dropped by 30,000 from 2007 to 2010. Two-thirds of those homes were bought by institutional investors, the Urban Institute says.

But as prices have recovered, that business model no longer works. Instead, small-time landlords now dominate the market, explains Strochak. Investors who have fewer than 10 units own 87% of all single-family rentals, while investors who have only one rental unit own 45%.

How does this change the home-building market?

Big players continue to push the trend, some deploying a new build-to-rent model. Housing firms are actively building single-family homes intending to rent them rather than sell, says ATTOM Data Solutions, a firm that analyzes housing market data.

“I can buy lots in areas that I can’t sell homes, but I can rent,” real estate agent Adam Whitmire told ATTOM in a recent report. “The local economy may not have enough income or enough credit to buy but there is enough income to rent.”

While big-time rental firms are backing off in some larger cities, the single-family rental investment play is picking up in smaller markets around the country in places like Dayton or Chattanooga, according to ATTOM.

How does renting affect local neighborhoods?

The movement to more single-family rentals is a mixed bag, says Daren Blomquist, senior vice president at ATTOM. On the one hand, the professionalization of the single-family rental industry is good for both families and neighborhoods, as there could be more standardized levels of maintenance and management services.

But there will likely be “unintended consequences as the nature of some neighborhoods change,” Blomquist warns. Renters might not be as invested in communities as owners.

“For example, people who want to own a home may no longer be as active in the typical suburban white picket fence neighborhood as properties in those neighborhoods become more prominently rentals,” he says. “That may push those homebuyers back into more urban, walkable environments, or it might push them further out to more rural areas.”

An old Dutch prison complex is getting a second life as a giant, environmentally friendly neighborhood. Buzz60's Elizabeth Keatinge (@elizkeatinge) has more.

Should you rent a home instead of buying?

Renting a home instead of buying can be a sensible choice for those looking to break out of apartment life. It can even serve as a good halfway step toward owning, to make sure single-family home life is really for you before you commit to a mortgage.

The main attraction to renting is obvious: buyers don’t need a large down payment to move in. While plenty of mortgage programs give would-be buyers a break on the traditional 20% down mortgage model, skyrocketing prices in urban areas like Seattle or Washington DC mean that even 5% can be a prohibitive down payment requirement. So renting might make sense if you are ready to live in a house.

What should you know before renting a single-family home?

While all rental transactions are similar, there are a few things you should consider before moving to a home rental. If you’re moving from an apartment, utilities will probably be considerably more expensive — after all, you’ll be heating and cooling an entire home much of the year. There’s also quite a few more maintenance requirements, particularly if there’s a yard. Ensure your lease has clear terms regarding who pays for upkeep of the property. Gardening might seem appetizing if you are sick of your apartment, but it can be a year-round job, so make certain you’re ready for the extra work. If you want to paint the walls or make other changes, know that you will need permission in writing.

Additionally, because you will inevitably have more possessions than in an apartment, it’s more important than ever to get renter’s insurance — your landlord’s policy likely won’t cover damage to or theft of your property. You should also consider liability insurance, in case you’re found responsible for any kind of accident at the property that causes personal or property damage.

If you’re moving to a single-family rental for more space or for monetary reasons, remember to adjust your budget to accommodate the new utility and rental costs.