Multi-family house as a capital investment in an aging city

If you extend the line of thought of , that would mean that someone without their own house should also not have larger stock portfolios/options etc.

Why? Those are apples and oranges. With stocks and options, there is the total loss of the invested capital. Without any additional payment obligation. Setting aside the CFD stuff.

With a capital investment in rental property with little or no equity, in the worst case you have a squatter who you have to sue out (expensive), have the apartment cleared out (expensive, first you need the landlord’s permission), possibly need to renovate.

To me, "wealth building" looks different here. And yes, I had portfolios and was very risk tolerant, even leveraged on credit, had a condominium for rent and sold everything. Came out break-even (thank God), but lost a few nerves.

I feel more comfortable with owner-occupied property. But true, in the stock market and in renting, there are only winners I always have to smile at these stories.

With a good return, I can leverage my equity in the rental property, which I cannot do with an owner-occupied property.

That's right, owner-occupied properties are fully financed with equity today.

That's right, owner-occupied properties are now financed with 100 percent equity.

Read the second clause you quoted, not just the first. You also continue to imply with your statement that the same rules and assumptions apply to owner-occupied and rented properties. That is not the case, even if I repeat myself again. They are two different things, apples and oranges.

Read the second subordinate clause you quoted, not just the first one. You also continue with your statement implying that the same rules and assumptions apply to owner-occupied and rented properties. This is not the case, even if I repeat myself again. They are two different things, apples and oranges.

I don’t know if you mean me? However, with owner-occupied properties, regardless of the loan-to-value ratio, there is one decisive factor: you are your own master when it comes to repayment. You are not dependent.

I don't know if you mean me? However, with owner-occupied properties, regardless of the loan-to-value ratio, there is one decisive factor: You are your own master when it comes to repayment. You are not dependent.

I meant grym, I did quote him after all.

Owner-occupied properties and rental properties have different risk profiles. Some risks overlap, others do not.

No plausible reason to generally force one (temporally) before the other. That's what it's about for me (and I've also come to the end with it, because it only leads to repetition).

The basic principle is the same in both cases when abstracted. The owner-occupied property also has a net return, namely the rent saved.

If one would have 1,500 euros rent but instead pays 1,000 euros loan installment, I make 500 euros profit AFTER taxes plus/minus wealth accumulation from the property (appreciation, depreciation, inflation, repayment, amortization,...).

Here too, I can vary the equity share and repayment and have different net-after-tax returns...