BrickX and Shares vs Property in Australia

An online ad has recently made me aware of BrickX, which offers Australians the opportunity to buy “bricks,” which represent fractional ownership of residential real estate.

In Australia, many people are convinced that property is a great investment, but I have always believed that shares are better. In the shares vs property argument, most people claim that property is safer than shares, but there is no proof for this. The safety of shares depends on the underlying business. Shares are nothing more than ownership of some business. For example, if you own Commonwealth Bank (CBA) shares you own a portion of the CBA business, which entitles you to a portion of its profits in the form of dividends. If you own enough CBA shares, you can wield enormous influence by e.g. voting in directors. The bottom line is that shares are only safe as the underlying business. Residential real estate is also a business, but that business is houses. If you created a company, use that company to buy a house, and then list that company on the stock exchange, the shares for that company should in theory be exactly the same as directly buying residential real estate taking into account any costs of listing the company or any economics of scale gained.

The launch of BrickX allows people to buy residential real estate in a similar manner to buying shares.  The video below provides a perfect introduction to BrickX.

In my opinion, one of the main problems with residential real estate is that they provide very low yields, and a listing of the properties on BrickX clearly show this, with rental yields of around 1 to 3 percent.

brickxpropertydetails

Of course, someone could argue that even though rental yields are low, the historical growth of around 6 to 9 percent per year in capital gains is impressive. But it is not. For example, STW, an ASX200 ETF, has historically returned 9 percent per year over the last five years with dividend yield of 5 percent. Commonwealth Bank shares have returned 8 percent per year in capital gains with a whopping 7 percent dividend yield.

cbasharesasofoct2017.jpg

Not only are yield and capital gains better for shares, but there are huge tax advantages for shares versus property. The dividend yield of CBA and STW have franking credits baked in, allowing you to reduce taxes. Many people believe that property has an inherent advantage through negative gearing, but negative gearing is available via shares and ETFs as well. It is possible to negatively gear into the stock market. First-time buyers of property can get a first-home-owners grant, but property buyers must pay stamp duty. Those buying shares or ETFs do not pay any stamp duty. Furthermore, property buyers pay tens of thousands in real estate agent commissions as well as conveyancing. If you own an investment property you must pay land tax and capital gains tax. If you don’t own an investment property you don’t pay land tax or capital gains tax, but this doesn’t put you ahead because then your property becomes a PPR, which means you cannot rent it out, which is a loss. Not paying capital gains tax also doesn’t put you ahead compared to shares because shares can be sold in small amounts, which means that when you retire you can sell small amounts of shares so that any capital gains put you below the tax-free threshold, meaning you pay either nil or minimal CGT. Then there is the insurance costs, council rates, and general maintenance costs associated with property.

Property vs Margin Loan vs Internally Geared Funds

I have mentioned in a previous post that I don’t like to buy a house. Instead, from experience, I find that it’s best to invest in ETFs. The reason is because ETFs give you flexibility to invest in what you want. If you buy a house as an investment, you are leveraging into one house, and although the general property market may behave one way it’s very hard to know how your house will perform individually. For example, the house price indexes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics averages out results for a number of different houses. If, say, you have a house in Sydney and Sydney house prices went up 5% this does not mean your house specifically went up 5% but that houses in general in Sydney went up 5%.

Furthermore, if you buy a house to live in, you have nothing but debt (unless you buy a house outright without a mortgage, but this is rare). You have a mortgage that you must pay monthly and any benefit from the investment is in the form of capital gains, which you cannot access until you sell the house. You cannot see capital gains, and you cannot access capital gains. Capital gains are invisible and, if there is suddenly a recession, all your capital gain that may have taken you decades to accumulate may disappear in a matter of weeks or months.

Capital gains do not provide the same sort of comfort that cold hard cash income provides. If you have a house, this problem can easily be fixed if you turn your house into an investment property and rent it out, but even if you had an investment property, the performance of an investment property just doesn’t compare to ETFs, in my opinion. Unless you really know how to pick good property, residential property in general has low yields, and after you pay property management fees, taxes, house repair and maintenance, etc, you don’t end up with much, especially not when compared to ETFs that have been engineered to seek out and pay high dividends.

Property is not a good investment. From my experience with residential property, once you buy a property, suddenly everyone wants money from you and everyone sends in their bills. Once you buy property, you need to pay bank fees, mortgage interest, lawyer fees (for conveyancing), real estate agent commissions, taxes (stamp duty and land tax), and property manager fees. Once something goes wrong in your house (e.g. the shower breaks) you need to get a repairman in to fix it, and he send you a bill as well.

Investing in high-dividend paying ETFs is completely different. You use an online broker (e.g. CommSec) to buy ETFs listed on a stock exchange, and then you sit back and watch money flow into your bank account. That’s it.

What about leverage?

One of the benefits of property is leverage. Because you borrow money from the bank, you have more assets exposed to the market, which means potentially higher gains. However, leverage works both ways. If the asset price does not go up enough to compensate you for the interest expense, you will lose money, and when you are leveraged, you will lose a lot of money.

That being said, leverage is a legitimate strategy if you want to accept higher risk to get higher returns. You are effectively moving up the efficient frontier.

Leverage is easy to achieve using ETFs. There are two options: (1) invest in leveraged ETF (e.g. the Betashares Gear Australian Equity Fund (ASX: GEAR)) or (2) apply for a margin loan to borrow money from the bank to buy stocks or ETFs.

Based on the modelling I have done, all these options (property, margin loan, and leveraged ETFs) have somewhat similar returns, so it doesn’t matter which you do so long as you feel comfortable with the risk you are taking. However, that being said, I think that out of these three choices, property is the worst because once you sign up to borrow money from the bank, you have a monthly mortgage that you must pay. You basically have a noose around your neck. If you don’t pay it, the bank will sell your house, and you will incur substantial transaction costs. When you have a margin loan, many people will try to scare you about the dreaded so-called “margin call” but this I think is overblown. The bank will only step in to induce a margin call when your debt levels are high relative to the value of your assets (they look at your loan-to-value ratio or LVR). They do this because, if you have a high LVR, the risk you are taking is too high, and the bank will get worried that the size of your debt will be too high relative to the size of your assets, which means you may owe the bank money that you may not pay. As part of their risk management, banks will monitor your LVR and intervene to lower your LVR if you raise it too much. This applies not only with stocks but also with property.

Banks will intervene to lower your LVR if you have not been paying your mortgage. If you miss a mortgage payment or two, the bank may allow it because your LVR will not be too high, but if it goes on for too long and your debt levels start to rise too much, the bank will intervene to sell your property. Therefore, regardless of whether you have a property or a margin loan, the bank will still intervene if the LVR is too high. So long as you keep watch of your LVR and make sure it is not too high, you will be fine.

When managing your LVR, the problem with property is that you have zero control over your portfolio. Once you buy your house, there’s littel you can do to affect the volatility of the asset. You have zero control. However, if you own a portfolio of shares or ETFs, you can control how much volatility there is in the portfolio by buying specific listed assets. Managing volatility is important to managing your LVR because volatility affects the value of the portfolio, which of course impacts the denominator in the LVR. If you use a margin loan to leverage, say, into the Chinese stock market (e.g. the iShares China Large-Cap ETF (ASX: IZZ)) then the risk you face (and therefore the probability of a margin call) will be much higher than if, say, you invest in stable assets such as global infrastructure (e.g. via the AMP Capital Global Infrastructure Securities Fund (ASX: GLIN)).

There is a much easier way of leveraging that involves zero risk of a margin call, and this is by investing in internally geared funds. With internally geared funds, you don’t borrow. Rather, you take your money and invest it in the fund. The fund manager collects your money (as well as money from other investors) and uses this to borrow money from the bank in order to invest in stocks. Because debt is handled by the fund manager (rather than you yourself), you don’t owe anyone anything ever. Betashares currently offer two listed internally geared ETFs: GEAR, which leverages into Australian stocks; and GGUS, which leverages into US stocks.

According to the Betashares website, the fund is “‘internally geared’, meaning all gearing obligations are met by the Fund, such that there are no possibilities of margin calls for investors.”

Gearing via an internally geared ETF, in my opinion, is the optimal strategy unless you want to borrow money yourself so you can claim the interest expense as a tax deduction. However, that being said, if you borrow money yourself, because you are only one man (or woman), you will typically pay between 4 to 6 per cent at current rates, but if you invest in a leveraged ETF, the fund manager is responsible for borrowing, and the fund manager has access to low institutional interest rates (supposedly around 3%) thanks to its buying power. You are therefore able to gain even greater leverage with internally leveraged ETFs.

Conclusion 

I used to be very much against gearing because I strongly believe that debt is slavery, but now I accept that gearing can be a legitimate strategy so long as you have robust downside protection. I believe that no matter what you do (when investing and in life in general), it’s good to take risk because more risk provides greater return, but risk must be managed. It is okay to take risk so long as you have a safety net or a fallback plan if everything goes wrong.

Advice to Millennials: Don’t Buy a House

Where I live in Australia, most people are obsessive about property investment. There is an assumption that you must buy a house otherwise you will fail financially. As a millennial who doesn’t own a home, people always ask me when I will plan to buy a house or whether I have made any progress in saving up for a deposit on a house. People are either pressuring me to buy a house or to get married.

My response is that I will never ever buy a house. There is simply no need to buy a house when there are investments available that are far better. For example, BetaShares (a brilliant organization, in my opinion) has recently issued the BetaShares Global Banks ETF. This ETF tracks an index that invests in big multinational too-big-to-fail banks. The top 10 holdings are disclosed on the BetaShares website and is reproduced below:

top 10 holdings of BNKS as at 29 July 2016

Investing money in large too-big-to-fail banks, in my opinion, is a wise strategy. For years now, Australians have only had access to Australian banks on the ASX via ETFs such as QFN and MVB. Banks are an excellent investment because typically they pay very high dividends.

The more dividend income you have, the more freedom you have in your life. Dividend income is true passive income because you don’t have to do anything to earn it. Even if you own property and rent it out, you must still find tenants, fix broken showers, and unless you own the property outright you have to slave away at work in order to meet monthly mortgage repayments. Then you pay outrageous taxes such as stamp duty, and every year you must pay bills and council rates, as well as land tax. If you own the BetaShares global bank ETF, you pay virtually nothing other than a minuscule 0.47% management fee. You can literally sit back, relax, do nothing, and watch the dividends enter your bank account.

When you own property, you typically need to borrow money from a bank. If you’re borrowing money from a bank, you’re not generating dividends. Rather, you’re paying for someone else’s dividend income. If you borrow money from a bank, you make the bank rich, which effectively means you’re making bank shareholders rich.

What happens if there is a GFC 2 and bank shares collapse?

This is a fair argument. One could make a strong argument that the financial system is more precarious now than ever. However, even if we are nearing a massive recession (which I suspect we are), I don’t think that is a reason to not invest in bank stocks (or stocks in general) because we don’t know when the bubble will pop, and bubbles can perpetuate for decades or centuries.

When I see a bubble forming, I rush in to buy, adding fuel to the fire. That is not irrational.

~George Soros

Furthermore, if you own a property and the global economy collapses, how will owning a house help you? Property prices can go down just like stock prices can go down.

One of the benefits of owning bank stocks is that, even if these banks fail, many of them are too big to fail. They are so integrated into the economy that in the event of an economic crisis they can hold society as hostage and demand ransom (or bailout money) from the government. The government will typically give money to these banks, either from existing funds or from simply by printing new money to hand to the banks. Once banks receive bailout money, they can use it to repair their balance sheet, and stock prices should go back up again.

Below is a passage from the Financial Systems Inquiry report in Australia:

Global history records governments of all political persuasions using taxpayer funds to support distressed institutions. As undesirable as it may be to put taxpayer funds at risk to support financial institutions, in the midst of a crisis it is often the fastest and most certain option to stabilise the system and avoid widespread economic damage.

Investors can rationally surmise that the government is likely to rescue systemically important institutions if no other options exist, as their collapse would cause the most damage to the financial system and broader economy. This leads to a belief that some institutions are too-big-to-fail — that they receive an implicit government guarantee.

http://fsi.gov.au/publications/interim-report/05-stability/too-big-to-fail/

In a world characterized by wage slavery, big banks are basically the apparatuses of wage slavery. Whips and chains have been replaced with mortgages and credit cards, and banks are the institutions responsible for distributing these instruments of oppression to the masses in order to enslave them.

If the big banks are in trouble, the entire system of wage slavery is under threat, and for this reason I don’t think the government will allow the banks to collapse. They might make one bank fail just to make an example of them (e.g. Bear Stearns) but if you buy a broad-based index fund, you’ll be investing in the entire banking sector, so it’s not a problem.

How can you live without a house?

Of course you need to live somewhere. Shelter is a necessity. However, shelter is not expensive. I currently live with my parents and pay some of their bills. Other people can easily lower costs by sharing a house with others. They can rent (or even buy) a place and then rent out spare rooms. I recommend buying or renting a place far away from the city in order to get the cheapest price or rent possible and then simply use public transport to travel into the city if you need to work.

Living with others can be problematic because it can be difficult to get along with other people, but there are easy ways to fix this problem. Try to find people who are kind and who will not cause drama. Also try not to interact with people you live with too much. Personally I am always out of the house, either at work or at the local library. If I am at home I usually stay in my room. I have food cooked for me, but even if there is no food, I have a large supply of Australian Soylent (Aussielent Body) that I can drink should I need to eat. This ensures I never have to bother with cooking or cleaning, and arguments over who should clean the dishes are common when people share accommodation.

Personally, with food technology so advanced nowadays, cooking and cleaning are quaint, archaic and useless activities that must be eliminated from your life. People are always trying to tempt me into a life of slavery by telling me that I must get married because I need a woman to cook for me, but Soylent has now made the housewife’s cooking skills completely redundant.

Conclusion

You don’t have to buy a house. Live with your parents or find good housemates, and then keep interactions with them minimal to prevent drama.

Drug dealers have a saying: “Don’t get high off your own supply.” In other words, drugs dealers make money off their customers’ drug addiction, but if a drug dealer were to consume his own product, it will be to his detriment because the strength of his business depends on the weakness of his customers. The same applies to banking. Everyone in society is addicted to debt. The “drug dealers” who supply this debt to the masses are banks, and anyone smart enough can become a drug dealer by buying bank stocks or bank ETFs, but as a drug dealer you should not “get high off your own supply,” that is, you should be very cautious about going into debt.

The goal of my life is to produce passive income mainly from dividends. This ensures I can obtain income without working, which gives me freedom. I am not dependent on anyone. Even though I live with my mother, I rarely speak to her as I’m out of the house all the time, and even if she wants me out of the house, I can easily rent a small one-bedroom apartment paid for with dividend income. Most people move out of their parents’ home, buy a house, and drown in mortgage debt, which makes them slaves to their managers. Because I live off dividends, I am not dependent on my work. I don’t need a job. If I get fired or even if I dislike my work, I can simply find a different job that I enjoy or I may even fly off to Chiang Mai where US$1000 per month ensures you live like a king, and in Chiang Mai I can spend all my time in coworking spaces where I can work on whatever I want that I am passionate about regardless of whether it makes money or not since I don’t need income to live since I live off dividends. None of this would be possible if I had a massive mortgage over my head that forced me every month to pay a large chunk of my income to the bank so that other people can collect their dividend payments. I’d rather be on the receiving end of a dividend payment.

Typically when someone has a large mortgage over their head, they have more than a mortgage. A house has associated costs such as electricity and gas bills as well as taxes, and people who are desperate to buy a house in order to keep up with the Joneses are usually trying to show off in other ways as well, so they will likely have expensive furniture, massive kitchens, refrigerators, huge couches, and expensive TVs. People always put me down for being a minimalist. Some do it with more subtlety than others, but people always try to put me down for not owning a house or having expensive furniture or having a trophy wife or multiple children in elite private schools. I am usually very honest nowadays. I tell them I am trying to have more freedom in my life so I can do what I want, and I tell them I am trying to build up dividend income. This usually comes as a complete surprise to most people because most people have been conditioned by society to buy things and to go into debt. All the money they earn is eaten up either by debt or by lifestyle expenses whereas all the salary income I earn is invested. My savings rate is 100 percent, and I subsist off dividends of approx $30k per year. I do not live a hand-to-mouth existence. I am not fed with money obtained from my own labor. I am fed with money obtained by other people’s labor. My hands don’t feed me. Other people’s hands feed me.

Living off dividends and escaping slavery is not about showing off, in my opinion. I have no need to show off to people because I am quite detached from people. As such, other people’s opinions don’t matter because I am not close to them. Most people must care about what others think because they’re forced to be around them due to circumstances, and if they’re stuck with these people, they need to get along with them, which means these other people must have a good opinion of you.

But I don’t need to be around anyone. I am not dependent on anyone for anything. I am completely independent. I am not afraid of bullies. Bullies can bully me, but because I live off dividends, I can use dividend income to block them from my life. I don’t need to suck up to anyone because, unlike salary income, dividend income doesn’t impose upon you an obligation to keep someone happy. I am no one’s slave.

But from my position of freedom, I am a witness to all the manipulation, deceit, propaganda, slavery, and oppression in this world, and I personally cannot be willfully ignorant of it. I cannot close my eyes and pretend that atrocity does not exist in this world.

Doing something about it is the difference I can make. I can spread the word and help vulnerable beings escape from oppression. That is my purpose in life: to be free myself and to help others be free as well.

Can we change the world? No, but hell, we can all try.

~Rupert Murdoch

There is nothing in life more important than freedom. Even if you don’t want freedom, being free will give you the freedom to not be free. Better to be free and have the choice of being a slave or not rather than be a slave and have no freedom to be free.

 

 

 

Take Responsibility: Don’t Blame the Banks

Property investors are borrowing money from the bank and then blaming the bank for lending them that money

I have just read Banks Are Loaning Too Much to People Who Can’t Pay it Back on News.com.au. Here are some snippets:

An explosive 60 Minutes investigation, which airs on Channel 9 on Sunday, has discovered banks are irresponsibly loaning large amounts of money to people who just can’t pay it back due to a collapse in the property market.

The 24-year-old, who was an ordinary income earner, was loaned $6.5 million by a bank and encouraged to invest in a “highly volatile” market in the little mining town of Moranbah in Queensland — she bought 10 properties.

She has now obtained documents from the bank that loaned her the money, which show they knew there was a medium to high risk of the values collapsing and her homes being left abandoned by potential renters….

“The investors bought their properties during a peak in the market, some were $600,000 or $700,000 for ordinary buildings, but now some are worth just $100,000.”

Mr Coulthart said people with an average income who wanted to buy an investment property had to borrow 10 and 20 times their gross income.

“That is a preposterous amount of lending,” he said. “Property values in Australia are out of control and the level of mortgage debt in Australia is something like 3.8 times the gross domestic product.”

He questioned why people are being encouraged to borrow 10 to 20 times their gross income.

“It’s an unsustainable level of borrowing,” he said.

The 24-year-old featured in the 60 Minutes report doesn’t entirely blame the bank for the millions she borrowed, admitting to being greedy.

But she said while she didn’t look closely enough at her capacity to repay the loan, she believes the banks also had a duty of care.

“What this has taught her is banks are throwing money at people in the good times and now in the bad times banks will blame the borrower and say it’s their fault for borrowing all this money,” Mr Coulthart said.

“To some degree that’s true, but they should have a duty of care to make sure people have the capacity to repay.”

One of the main businesses banks have is lending money to people who want to borrow.

However, I shake my head in disbelief when people willingly borrow money from the bank, put it in a high-risk investment, lose their money, and then turn around and blame the bank for lending them the money in the first place.

Banks don’t want to lose money. They are a business. As such, it makes no sense for them to lend to someone who will not pay them back. They will try their hardest to filter out bad borrowers, but this is an inexact science. You can look at income statements and check creditworthiness, but with so many borrowers on their books, banks can only do so much, and borrowers need to take responsibility for their own actions.

It may be true that banks are “throwing money at people in the good times and now in the bad times banks will blame the borrower and say it’s their fault for borrowing all this money.” However, it works the other way as well. Borrowers fall over each other trying to borrowing as much money as possible during the good times and now in the bad times they will blame the lender and say it’s their fault for lending all this money.

Debt can be useful if you use the borrowed money to make more money. If you borrow at 4 percent and make 10 percent, you’ve made a good 6 percentage point difference. However, in business and investing, things don’t always go to plan. There is such thing as risk.

This is why debt is like a knife. It can be used for good, but if used poorly it is a dangerous instrument.

A knife can be used to cut vegetables. Eating vegetables is good for your health. However, a knife can be used to cut yourself or cut others. Debt is similar. Debt can help you, but used irresponsibly debt can hurt you.

Suppose I were to buy a knife from a shop. Suppose I then take this knife and stab myself. I go to hospital due to heavy bleeding. Then suppose I blamed the shop for selling me the knife. That is no different to those who borrow from banks and then blame the banks for lending them money when investments turn bad.

 

 

How to Live with Annoying People

You must always have a way of getting out when things go wrong.

When most people try to save money, they look at small expenses such as coffee. According to David Bach’s “latte factor” concept, by skipping your daily coffee, you save about $4 per day, and this adds up to about $1000 per year.

While I do not disagree that skipping your daily coffee can help you save, I’d rather put my effort into actions that have a bigger impact. The biggest expense that most people face is accommodation, i.e. putting a roof over your head.

My recommendation for those who want to save money on accommodation is to live with other people. Either buy a house and rent out spare bedrooms to others (e.g. via Airbnb) or rent with others. Another simple way to live with others is to live with your parents. By living with others, costs are spread out.

However, living with others is not easy. That being said, if someone wants to pay more money to live by himself, I have nothing against this because I know how bad it can be to live with other people. For example, today is a Sunday, and I live with my parents. Today I was at home in my bedroom on my computer. My mother was in the living room. She is screaming something to my grandmother, arguing about food. I could not concentrate at all.

My recommendation to those who live with others to save money is not necessarily to move out. Rather, the answer can be as simple as getting out of the house.

Annoyed that my family were making too much noise, I had a shower, got dressed, grabbed my laptop, hopped into the car, and drove to the local library. I am typing this blog post right now in the local library.

Like I said, living by yourself is fine. It makes sense to have your independence and privacy. However, living with others can save you a considerable amount of money. It can be annoying, but the annoyance can be mitigated to some extent simply by removing yourself from the house most of the time.

Driving out of the home when the family goes crazy, in my opinion, highlights a fundamental law that all freedom extremists must be aware of: always have an exit plan. No matter where you are, no matter what relationship you have with anyone, be it a professional relationship or an intimate relationship, you must always have a way of getting out when things go wrong.

Be free.

 

Don’t Aspire to Buy and Live in Your Own Home

There is much talk of a housing affordability crisis in Australia. Average house prices in Melbourne and Sydney are reaching $600,000 or even more.

However, for young people looking to buy a house, my recommendation is that you do not buy.

Instead, go to your parents and negotiate with them an arrangement whereby you pay, say, $300 per month to live with them. Depending on how nice your parents are, they may even allow you to live with them for free.

If this is not an option, try to arrange to share a house with other people.

If you do buy a house, consider ways you can offset the burden of a big mortgage, such as renting out spare rooms.

I know a friend who, after purchasing a house, decided to renovate the garage so it was liveable. He lived in his garage and rented out the rest of the house. The rent was pretty much able to cover the mortgage repayments, which meant he was able to pay off the mortgage in about six years.

I have lived with my parents for the past five years and have been able to save up about $60k per year. After five years that adds up to about $300k, but rather than invest in property, I prefer to invest in shares, index funds, and managed funds. Nevertheless, shares have gone up in value in the last five or six years, and my net worth has increased at a rate of about $100k per year, which gives a net worth of about $500k now.

It doesn’t matter whether you invest in shares or property. Both are good investments. However, I believe shares are better because they usually make more money and because you generally pay less tax (although this depends on which country you live in).

To sum up, try to live with your parents. If you rent, try to rent with others. If you buy, rent out the rooms. Any of these three strategies frees up money to allow you to invest. You’re not really investing much if so much of what you earn goes towards paying interest, which is the situation most people have when they take out a massive mortgage to buy their dream home. It is true that rent money is dead money, but interest is also dead money.

The main benefit of real estate as an investment is the ability to borrow money to invest. If you are able to borrow more money, you have more assets exposed to the market, which means returns are higher. However, this can be achieved via index funds or shares simply by getting a margin loan (i.e. borrowing to invest) and/or investing in internally leveraged ETFs (i.e. investing in a fund that borrows to invest).

Note that just because you can use debt to make more money, it doesn’t mean you should. Borrowing to invest can be profitable, but there are many assumptions you are making about interest rates and returns. With leveraged ETFs, fund managers usually use dividends to pay off their own debt, which means the investment produces very little income. Furthermore, when you borrow to invest, you usually need to make regular monthly repayments. These regular monthly repayments diminish the value you get from any passive income you may receive from dividends or rent. Debt is anti-passive income and therefore anti-freedom. Borrowing money from the bank makes you are slave to the bank.

There is a myth pervasive in Australia and many other countries that renters are second class citizens who must aspire to own a home because owning a home makes money. This is a lie. What matters is how fast your net worth increases. Most people who buy a home have such massive mortgages with huge interest repayments that their net worth increases very slowly because any progress made when the price of the house goes up is quickly lost when they have to pay interest. Their net worth would have grown faster if they had rented a cheap place and socked the saved money into index funds.

It is not just interest. Buying a house is also associated with massive fees to accountants, real estate agents, and lawyers, as well as huge taxes (such as stamp duty in Australia). All these bring down the growth of your net worth, often by more than people expect.

When most people at my work “invest” in property, I never hear them talk about the rate of growth of net worth, rental yields, or variability of prices. They seem more keen to talk about how nice the patio is, whether the kitchen has a granite bench, and whether it has period styling. All this is bling that distracts them from the massive expenses associated with property.

Don’t bother buying a house. They are clunky massive assets that are taxed heavily and usually produce little returns. They tie you to one place and stifle your movements.