Ben Felix Pushes 5% Rule as Data Debunks Homeowner Happiness Edge

Ben Felix

Unrecoverable ownership costs average roughly 5% of a property's value annually while empirical research reveals homeownership yields zero durable gains in daily happiness over renting.

AI-assisted summary of Renting vs Buying a Home: How to Decide — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2021-11-02

Key ideas

Empirical studies across Germany, the US, and Switzerland show that homeowners are no happier than renters on average, largely due to affective forecasting errors, hedonic adaptation, and lost leisure time. (1:47)
The unrecoverable carrying cost of homeownership can be estimated via the 5% rule: 1% for property taxes, 1% for structural maintenance and depreciation, and a 3% net opportunity cost of equity relative to a diversified stock portfolio. (9:17)
Under the 5% rule, buying a $1,000,000 property incurs roughly $4,166 per month ($50,000 annually) in unrecoverable user costs, meaning renting an equivalent home below that figure is financially advantageous. (10:05)
Long-term historical datasets, such as Robert Shiller's data back to 1628 and the 16-country study 'The Rate of Return on Everything', indicate real residential capital appreciation averages only 0.2% to 1.1% per year. (8:27)

Detailed notes

## Background Published by portfolio manager Ben Felix on YouTube on November 2, 2021, this video examines the complex trade-offs between renting and purchasing residential property. The channel description explains that making a housing decision requires carefully balancing interacting financial and non-financial considerations, noting that contrary to popular belief and societal expectations, renting is often the superior choice for both balance sheets and subjective well-being.

## TL;DR Ben Felix challenges the persistent personal finance dogma that renting is throwing money away, citing empirical studies to show that homeownership fails to deliver long-term happiness due to hedonic adaptation, positional competition, and the unadaptable stress of debt and commuting. Financially, owning incurs severe unrecoverable holding costs—namely property taxes, ongoing maintenance and structural depreciation, and the opportunity cost of equity—which Felix models into a baseline 5% annual user cost rule to compare against equivalent rents. While owning provides a forced savings mechanism and an inflation hedge, it also introduces geographic illiquidity and downside price volatility compared to the flexibility of renting. Felix illustrates that housing decisions should ultimately serve daily lifestyle needs, personal relationships, and autonomy rather than speculative wealth-building goals.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation is analytical, steady, and rigorously academic, leaning heavily on macroeconomic data and psychological literature rather than real estate hype. Felix delivers his points with calm, measured authority, systematically dismantling emotional assumptions with clear economic formulas and visual breakdowns. A brief, candid confession regarding his own recent decision to buy a home adds a touch of self-deprecating humor and relatable nuance, leaving the viewer with a grounded, clear-headed framework free of societal panic.

## Bulletin - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=107s) Empirical studies across Germany, the US, and Switzerland show that homeowners are no happier than renters on average, largely due to affective forecasting errors, hedonic adaptation, and lost leisure time. - [09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=557s) The unrecoverable carrying cost of homeownership can be estimated via the 5% rule: 1% for property taxes, 1% for structural maintenance and depreciation, and a 3% net opportunity cost of equity relative to a diversified stock portfolio. - [10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=605s) Under the 5% rule, buying a $1,000,000 property incurs roughly $4,166 per month ($50,000 annually) in unrecoverable user costs, meaning renting an equivalent home below that figure is financially advantageous. - [08:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=507s) Long-term historical datasets, such as Robert Shiller's data back to 1628 and the 16-country study 'The Rate of Return on Everything', indicate real residential capital appreciation averages only 0.2% to 1.1% per year.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=0s) Societal pressure often frames renting as throwing money away, but renting can be financially and psychologically superior to owning. - [00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=45s) Affective forecasting errors lead individuals driven by extrinsic goals—like status and prestige—to systematically overestimate the happiness homeownership will bring. - [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=107s) Cross-country empirical data reveals that while owners may report slightly higher reflective life satisfaction, they experience equal or lower day-to-day happiness and spend significantly more time on chores. - [02:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=167s) Hedonic adaptation quickly neutralizes the emotional boost of purchasing a home, turning the property into a background condition of life rather than a source of joy. - [03:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=226s) Homes are positional goods prone to comparison and buyer's remorse; the 'McMansions Effect' shows that the construction of larger nearby houses directly lowers existing homeowners' satisfaction. - [05:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=305s) High mortgage debt and long daily commutes are chronic, unadaptable stressors that correlate with elevated stress hormones, marital friction, and reduced well-being. - [06:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=386s) Both renting and owning incur unrecoverable costs; ownership involves ongoing property taxes (~1% of value) and maintenance/depreciation (~1% of value). - [07:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=435s) Physical buildings suffer from wear-and-tear and functional obsolescence, meaning owners pay for upkeep via regular cash expenditures or a diminished future sale price. - [08:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=507s) Real capital appreciation on residential real estate is historically modest (0.2% to 1.1% annually), meaning housing is not an inherently high-growth asset. - [09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=557s) The opportunity cost of home equity represents the difference between expected real stock returns (~4% after fees) and real real estate appreciation (~1%), creating an approximate 3% net capital penalty. - [09:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=574s) Combining property taxes (1%), maintenance (1%), and equity opportunity cost (3%) yields the 5% baseline rule of thumb for imputed rent. - [10:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=620s) The 5% threshold shifts based on equity allocation, stock factor tilts, and whether non-housing investments are held in tax-sheltered accounts (RRSPs/TFSAs) versus taxable accounts. - [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) Mortgages provide a forced-savings mechanism and hedge against rent inflation, but they expose owners to severe short-term price volatility and relocation lock-in risk. - [12:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=760s) Real contributors to human well-being include autonomy, mastery, nature, strong relationships, and community—not the legal title of homeownership. - [13:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=801s) Housing choices should be dictated by individual lifestyle factors, remote work flexibility, and local housing availability rather than financial speculation.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=0s) The Rent vs. Buy Dilemma and the Well-Being Question

Ben Felix, portfolio manager at PWL Capital, opens this episode of *Common Sense Investing* by challenging one of the most entrenched personal finance dogmas: the notion that renting is merely throwing money away. While the housing decision carries immense financial weight, it also fundamentally dictates geographical location, daily routines, and lifestyle allocation. Felix stresses that housing cannot be solved with a one-size-fits-all formula; instead, individuals must balance financial and non-financial variables and recognize how they compound over time. Ben Felix argues that “In many cases, contrary to conventional wisdom and societal pressure, renting is a better option than owning, both financially and from the perspective of well-being.”

Before examining the balance sheet, Felix focuses on whether homeownership actually delivers on its psychological promises. If buying property genuinely produced durable happiness, purely numerical counterarguments would hold little weight. However, behavioural science demonstrates that human beings suffer from severe shortcomings in affective forecasting—the capacity to predict one's future emotional state following major life changes or acquisitions. Material milestones such as purchasing real estate frequently stem from extrinsic motivations, which encompass pursuits like financial prestige, image, and social status.

Citing the 2010 study *Extrinsic Value Orientation and Affective Forecasting: Overestimating the Rewards, Underestimating the Costs*, Felix contrasts these external drivers with intrinsic aspirations such as community, intimacy, and personal development. Extrinsically motivated individuals not only experience lower baseline happiness, but they also systematically overestimate the emotional payoff of reaching their material milestones while ignoring the accompanying operational frictions and ongoing costs.

- Extrinsic goals revolve around status, wealth accumulation, and physical image. - Intrinsic goals centre on community connection, personal growth, and close relationships. - Extrinsically driven individuals consistently overestimate the lasting satisfaction derived from acquiring material assets.

[01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=107s) Empirical Evidence on Homeownership and Life Satisfaction

Empirical research across multiple international datasets confirms that the psychological return on homeownership is largely an illusion. A 2020 study examining German data demonstrated that people significantly overestimate the long-term life satisfaction gains of transitioning from a rental property to an owner-occupied home, with the error being starkest among those motivated by extrinsic values. A 2011 study titled *The American Dream or the American Delusion?* controlled for income, housing quality, and physical health, revealing that homeowners were not better off across several subjective well-being metrics. In fact, homeowners derived greater distress from their housing situation, largely because of how they spent their time: they logged far fewer hours in active leisure and restorative recreation. Similarly, a 2019 Swiss study (*Homeownership and Happiness: Evidence for Switzerland*) determined that after controlling for variables such as wealth, income, and physical health, homeowners were either no happier or noticeably less happy than their renting counterparts.

Additional literature shows modest bumps in reflective life satisfaction alongside lower experiential day-to-day joy. A 2017 United States study found that while owners reported marginally elevated reflective scores when asked generally about their lives, they experienced less intense daily feelings of happiness than renters and devoted vastly more time to household chores and upkeep. Felix connects these findings to hedonic adaptation, noting that humans rapidly normalize new conditions. As Ben Felix observes, “We overestimate how much happier we will be by purchasing a home, but once we live there, the home becomes a condition of life rather than an aspiration and its impact on our daily well-being is neutralized.” Referencing the 2010 paper *If Money Doesn't Make You Happy, Then You Probably Aren't Spending It Right*, Felix concludes that moment-to-moment happiness is governed by our daily activities and time use rather than static background circumstances like property deeds.

- German 2020 study: Renters moving into homeownership consistently overestimate long-run life satisfaction gains. - American 2011 study: Homeowners derived more psychological strain from their housing and spent less time on active leisure. - Swiss 2019 study: Controlling for wealth, employment, health, and property quality leaves homeowners no happier or less happy than renters. - US 2017 study: Owners reported slightly higher reflective satisfaction but experienced lower intensity of momentary happiness and spent substantial hours on home upkeep.

[03:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=226s) Buyer's Remorse, Social Comparison, and the McMansion Effect

Major material purchases carry a psychological vulnerability that experiential purchases do not: rumination and comparison. Drawing on the 2010 paper *The Relative Relativity of Material and Experiential Purchases*, Felix highlights that material goods readily invite buyer's remorse because purchasers continually look backward at options they passed up, evaluate whether they could have purchased the same asset cheaper elsewhere, and contrast their purchase against what others have acquired. Properties amplify this vulnerability because they are inherently positional goods whose subjective value depends heavily on peer comparison rather than purely intrinsic shelter. Ben Felix explains that “Homes are positional goods, meaning that their appeal comes from, not only their intrinsic property as a place to live, but also from how it compares to the homes of peers.”

This dynamic is documented empirically in the 2019 paper *The McMansion Effect: Top House Size and Positional Externalities in U.S. Suburbs*. When large, high-end homes are built at the upper tier of a suburban neighborhood's size distribution, the subjective satisfaction that nearby residents derive from their own homes drops substantially. This positional dissatisfaction is most pronounced among households already occupying large homes and decays with physical distance from the new development. Rather than being content, exposed homeowners react to these local McMansions by discounting the value of their own residences, taking on additional debt, and striving to upscale to even larger properties to maintain relative standing.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The McMansion Effect Cycle accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how top-tier home construction triggers positional dissatisfaction, additional leverage, and upscaling among suburban homeowners.

subgraph Construction ["Suburban Development"] A["New Construction of Top-Size Homes ('McMansions')"] end

subgraph NeighborResponse ["Positional Externality"] B["Neighbors Compare Property to New Development"] C["Drop in Subjective Satisfaction with Existing Home"] end

subgraph Escalation ["Financial Reaction"] D["Homeowners Undervalue Current House"] E["Take on Additional Debt to Upscale"] end

A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E ```

[05:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=305s) Experiential Spending vs. The Unadaptable Pains of Debt and Commuting

To bypass hedonic adaptation and social comparison, Felix suggests shifting spending away from massive, infrequent material acquisitions toward frequent experiential purchases. Activities such as treating a friend to dinner, enrolling in an engaging class, pursuing an immersive hobby, or practicing prosocial spending deliver sustained boosts to well-being because experiences are not easily adapted to or compared against others. Buying real estate represents the exact opposite: it is an enormous, concentrated material expenditure that risks making buyers "house poor" while exposing them to chronic, unadaptable stressors.

Two specific consequences of homeownership severely undermine well-being: financial leverage and traffic congestion. Citing *Happy Money: The Science of Happier Spending* by Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton, Felix notes that debt acts as a chronic psychological drag. In their book, Dunn and Norton summarize the data bluntly: “What we owe is a bigger predictor of our happiness than what we make.” Heavy debt burdens correlate with suppressed happiness and higher levels of marital friction. Commuting is similarly toxic; people never truly adapt to heavy traffic, and biological markers such as stress hormones remain elevated even after years of daily travel. When homebuyers move far away from employment centres to secure more square footage, they trade an asset to which they rapidly adapt for a grueling commute to which they never will.

- Frequent, small experiential purchases (hobbies, dining, shared courses) foster persistent well-being without hedonic decay. - Prosocial spending (buying for others) reliably enhances daily mood over self-directed material acquisition. - Unadaptable negative stressors of home purchases include elevated debt burdens, debt-induced marital discord, and long commutes in gridlock.

[06:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=386s) The Unrecoverable Costs of Homeownership: Property Taxes and Depreciation

Having explored the non-financial side, Felix addresses the financial mechanics, dismissing the claim that renting is financial waste. Renting carries clear, predictable outlays: contracted rent, basic utilities, and tenant insurance, which is substantially cheaper than a homeowner's policy. The true costs of homeownership, conversely, are opaque and routinely misunderstood. Ownership incurs distinct unrecoverable carrying costs: property taxes, routine maintenance, structural depreciation, insurance, and the opportunity cost of invested equity.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Renting vs Owning Cost Structures accDescr: Flowchart contrasting the visible expenses of renting against the multiple unrecoverable holding costs of homeownership.

subgraph RentingCosts ["Renting Outlays"] R1["Contracted Monthly Rent"] R2["Tenant Insurance"] R3["Basic Utilities"] end

subgraph OwningCosts ["Unrecoverable Ownership Outlays"] O1["Property Taxes (~1% of value)"] O2["Building Maintenance & Obsolescence (~1%)"] O3["Homeowner Insurance & Utilities"] O4["Opportunity Cost of Invested Equity"] end ```

Property taxes—which Felix models at 1% of the property's value each year—represent an unrecoverable fee paid for local services that delivers zero residual equity. Furthermore, physical buildings are depreciating physical assets subjected to both wear-and-tear and functional obsolescence as modern building codes, techniques, and aesthetic standards advance. Ben Felix emphasizes the unavoidable reality of this friction: “You either pay for the cost of maintenance with cash as you consume the home over time, or you pay for the depreciation through a lower sale price in the future.”

Historical data from the macro-historical study *The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870 to 2015* estimates ongoing maintenance and depreciation between 1% and 2% annually, excluding financing charges, taxes, and utilities. Similarly, Statistics Canada allocates a 1.5% building depreciation factor within the Consumer Price Index (CPI) basket. Multiplying this 1.5% structural depreciation rate by the typical ratio of building value to total property value yields a baseline maintenance cost of roughly 1% per year. Felix cautions that these relentless expenses—such as recurring weekend trips to home improvement stores—are almost always omitted when homeowners boast about capital gains.

- Property taxes: Estimated at approximately 1% of total property value annually, functioning as an unrecoverable expense. - Physical depreciation: Wear and tear from occupancy and weather. - Functional obsolescence: Aging building materials, outdated layouts, and evolving construction standards lowering an older building's relative value. - Maintenance benchmark: 1% to 2% historical average; roughly 1% of total property value after adjusting the 1.5% structural rate for the land-to-building split.

[08:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=507s) The Opportunity Cost of Home Equity and Real Returns

The final and frequently ignored carrying cost of homeownership is the opportunity cost of equity—the investment return sacrificed by locking capital into brick and mortar rather than deploying it into productive financial assets. To establish a baseline, Felix assumes this equity could otherwise be invested in a low-cost, broadly diversified portfolio of global equities held in a tax-sheltered vehicle. Measuring this trade-off requires understanding realistic expectations for real home price appreciation over long horizons.

While homeowners often anchor to recent localized real estate booms, deep historical records indicate that residential housing is not an explosive growth asset. In *Irrational Exuberance*, Nobel laureate Robert Shiller analyzed real estate data extending back to 1628, revealing that real, inflation-adjusted home price appreciation has historically averaged between 0.2% and 0.4% annually. Similarly, the comprehensive study *The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870 to 2015* calculated the real annual price appreciation across 16 developed nations at 1.1%. Felix rounds this baseline expectation to approximately 1% real growth per year, cautioning that recent regional spikes in Canadian cities reflect historical anomalies rather than reliable indicators of future real appreciation. Ben Felix frames this trade-off directly: “The opportunity cost of equity measures the cost of having money invested in a home instead of in something else.”

- Robert Shiller (*Irrational Exuberance*): Historical real home price growth averaged between 0.2% and 0.4% annually from 1628 onward. - *The Rate of Return on Everything* (1870–2015): 16-country real capital appreciation for residential real estate averaged 1.1% per year. - Long-run baseline expectation: Real capital appreciation of residential real estate is conservatively rounded to roughly 1% per year.

[09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=557s) Deriving the 5% Rule: Expected Returns, Opportunity Costs, and Imputed Rent

Ben Felix explains that elevated price-to-rent ratios should not lead buyers to expect continued high returns; rather, the current ratio represents a historical anomaly. Historically, when housing prices run high relative to rents, that divergence resolves through falling real estate prices rather than rising rents. To properly evaluate the decision between owning and renting, one must compute the "user cost" (or imputed rent) of living in an owner-occupied property. Drawing from the PWL Capital Financial Planning Assumptions Update, Felix notes that the estimated expected real annual return on a 100% stock portfolio sits at 4.28%. Factoring in portfolio ownership costs such as management fees and withholding taxes rounds this estimate down to 4.0% real. When paired against a 1.0% expected real return on residential real estate, allocating equity toward a home yields a 3.0% net opportunity cost relative to equities.

Adding this 3.0% opportunity cost of equity to roughly 1.0% for annual property taxes and 1.0% for regular maintenance produces a total baseline user cost of 5.0% of the property's value each year. Felix points out the fundamental reality behind this math: “Another way to think about this is that you're paying rent whether you own a home or not.” While taking on a mortgage lowers the initial equity required, the massive ongoing cash flow commitments of servicing debt alongside maintenance and taxes mean the overall 5.0% equivalent cost threshold still holds.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The 5% User Cost of Housing accDescr: Diagram illustrating how property taxes, maintenance, and opportunity cost add up to the 5 percent user cost of homeownership. subgraph DirectCosts["Unrecoverable Out-of-Pocket Costs"] PT["Property Taxes (~1%)"] Maint["Maintenance Costs (~1%)"] end subgraph EquityCost["Capital Opportunity Cost"] StockRet["Expected Stock Return (~4%)"] RE_Ret["Expected Real Estate Return (~1%)"] StockRet -.->|"4% minus 1%"| OppCost["Net Opportunity Cost of Equity (3%)"] RE_Ret -.->|"4% minus 1%"| OppCost end DirectCosts --> ImputedRent OppCost --> ImputedRent["Total Annual User Cost (5% Imputed Rent)"] ```

Applying this rule to actual figures: - A $1,000,000 home translates into an imputed user cost of approximately $4,166 per month ($50,000 annually). If an equivalent property can be rented for $4,166 per month or less, renting is financially equivalent or superior. - Portfolios tilted more aggressively toward small-cap and value stocks carry higher expected returns, which increases the opportunity cost of home equity and pushes the equivalent rental threshold higher. - Conservative asset allocations lower the equity opportunity cost, yielding a lower rent-equivalent threshold. - The 5% baseline assumes investments grow in tax-sheltered accounts like Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) and Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs). Because Canadian primary residences enjoy a full tax exemption on capital gains, a renter forced to invest in a taxable account faces lower after-tax stock returns, which shrinks the equity opportunity cost and decreases the target rental equivalent.

---

[11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) Economic Trade-Offs, Mobility Risks, and Well-Being

Beyond direct user costs, homeownership involves behavioral and structural tradeoffs. A mortgage serves as an automatic forced savings plan because individuals are far more inclined to skip a voluntary RRSP deposit than to miss a monthly mortgage payment; renters must exercise strict financial discipline to achieve the same balance sheet growth. Furthermore, owning offers an effective long-term hedge against rent inflation, anchoring shelter expenditures more predictably over decades.

However, housing markets feature significant short-term price volatility. While paper volatility matters little for a permanent "forever home," it turns into a severe financial hazard if a homeowner is forced to relocate. Renters retain unmatched flexibility to pivot whenever their neighborhood, dwelling, or career opportunities shift, avoiding the friction and downside risk of selling into a falling market. As Felix puts it: “Sure, owners can't be rent-evicted by a greedy landlord in a rising market, but they're taking on a lot more price risk in the event that they need to move in a falling market.” Homeowners are also far more frequently saddled with longer commutes. Academic research on happiness indicates that owning property does not meaningfully improve life satisfaction:

> “The literature relating happiness to home ownership makes it clear that homeowners are not happier than renters just because they own a home, even if they expected to be when they decided to buy.”

Rather than homeownership, genuine determinants of subjective well-being include spending time in nature, pursuing mastery in skills, feeling connected to a broader community, exercising autonomy, and nurturing strong personal relationships.

- Renters can successfully build net worth on par with homeowners provided they grasp user costs and invest their cash savings diligently. - Counting on past Canadian housing windfalls to repeat is dangerous: “Buying a home today on the expectation of unrealistically high housing appreciation in the future is more likely to do harm than good.”

---

[13:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=801s) Ben Felix’s Personal Decision and Final Takeaways

Injecting personal context, Felix shares a candid confession: “In the interest of full disclosure (chuckles), I recently bought a house after renting for all of my adult life.” He emphasizes that this purchase was dictated purely by lifestyle requirements rather than speculative wealth-building goals. Having the option to permanently work remotely eliminated any commute. He chose a long-term home in a secluded area close to hiking trails, water, amenities within walking distance in a nearby small town, a large garage to accommodate hobbies, and a 45-minute drive to his parents. The absolute lack of rental listings in that specific rural market made buying the only viable way to secure the living arrangement.

Conversely, while previously residing in the city and commuting to the office every single day, Felix chose to rent close to work because he knew it was not his permanent home base, and rental properties were readily available. In both life chapters, lifestyle needs drove the housing choice rather than financial speculation or societal expectations. He concludes by urging viewers to distribute this framework broadly, remarking that "a lot of people could benefit from this information right now," and directs viewers interested in deeper analysis to episodes 154 and 170 of the *Rational Reminder* podcast.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=0s) In many cases, contrary to conventional wisdom and societal pressure, renting is a better option than owning, both financially and from the perspective of well-being. — Ben Felix

> [05:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=305s) What we owe is a bigger predictor of our happiness than what we make. — Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton

> [01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=107s) We overestimate how much happier we will be by purchasing a home, but once we live there, the home becomes a condition of life rather than an aspiration and its impact on our daily well-being is neutralized. — Ben Felix

> [06:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=386s) You either pay for the cost of maintenance with cash as you consume the home over time, or you pay for the depreciation through a lower sale price in the future. — Ben Felix

> [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) Buying a home today on the expectation of unrealistically high housing appreciation in the future is more likely to do harm than good. — Ben Felix

> [03:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=226s) Homes are positional goods, meaning that their appeal comes from, not only their intrinsic property as a place to live, but also from how it compares to the homes of peers. — Ben Felix

> [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) The literature relating happiness to home ownership makes it clear that homeowners are not happier than renters just because they own a home, even if they expected to be when they decided to buy. — Ben Felix

> [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) Sure, owners can't be rent-evicted by a greedy landlord in a rising market, but they're taking on a lot more price risk in the event that they need to move in a falling market. — Ben Felix

## Mentioned Ben Felix, PWL Capital, Common Sense Investing, Extrinsic Value Orientation and Affective Forecasting: Overestimating the Rewards, Underestimating the Costs, The American Dream or the American Delusion?, Homeownership and Happiness: Evidence for Switzerland, If Money Doesn't Make You Happy, Then You Probably Aren't Spending It Right, The Relative Relativity of Material and Experiential Purchases, The McMansion Effect: Top House Size and Positional Externalities in U.S. Suburbs, Happy Money: The Science of Happier Spending, Elizabeth Dunn, Michael Norton, The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870 to 2015, Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index (CPI), Robert Shiller, Irrational Exuberance, PWL Capital Financial Planning Assumptions Update, Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA), Rational Reminder

## Video description Meet with PWL Capital: https://calendly.com/d/3vm-t2j-h3p

Making the housing decision requires careful consideration of both the financial and non-financial impacts, and the way that they interact with each other. There is no universally right way to approach housing. In many cases, contrary to conventional wisdom and societal pressure, renting is a better option than owning, both financially and from the perspective of subjective well-being.

Referenced in this video: Extrinsic Value Orientation and Affective Forecasting: Overestimating the Rewards, Underestimating the Costs https://sdtheory.s3.amazonaws.com/SDT/documents/2010_SheldonGunzNicholsFerguson_JOP.pdf Does the Dream of Home Ownership Rest Upon Biased Beliefs? A Test Based on Predicted and Realized Life Satisfaction https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3660256 The American Dream or the American Delusion? The Private and External Benefits of Homeownership for Women https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1877163 Homeownership and Happiness: Evidence for Switzerland https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/bitstream/11475/18640/3/2019_Hofmann-Umbricht_Homeownership-and-happiness-Switzerland_SREJ.pdf The relationship between homeownership and life satisfaction in Germany https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/51372/1/672468557.pdf Is a Fixer-Upper Actually a Downer? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2017.1367317 If Money Doesn't Make You Happy Then You Probably Aren't Spending It Right https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/danielgilbert/files/if-money-doesnt-make-you-happy.nov-12-20101.pdf The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20053039/ The McMansion Effect: Top House Size and Positional Externalities in U.S. Suburbs https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3378131 Book: Happy Money https://dunn.psych.ubc.ca/book-happy-money/ Shelter in the Canadian CPI: An overview https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/62f0014m/62f0014m2017001-eng.htm Theory of Homes and Jobs https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/homejobs.pdf

------------------ Follow Ben Felix on - Twitter: https://twitter.com/benjaminwfelix - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaminwfelix/

Visit Rational Reminder: www.https://rationalreminder.ca/

Follow the Rational Reminder on: - Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/RationalRemind

Visit PWL Capital: https://www.pwlcapital.com/teams/passmore-felix/

Follow PWL Capital on: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/PWLCapital - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PWLCapital - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pwl-capital/

You can find the Rational Reminder podcast on Google Podcasts: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYXRpb25hbHJlbWluZGVyLmxpYnN5bi5jb20vcnNz Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-rational-reminder-podcast/id1426530582?mt=2 Spotify Podcasts: https://open.spotify.com/show/6RHWTH9iW7hdnA7eAg7ukO?si=hjZNfLKuSjSeWX38GPqhVA ------------------

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8)

中文简报

本·菲利克斯推广5%法则，数据打破买房幸福感优势迷思房屋所有权的不可收回成本平均约为房产年价值的5%，而实证研究显示，与租房相比，买房并不能为日常幸福感带来持久提升。本·菲利克斯对“租房就是浪费钱”这一根深蒂固的个人理财观念提出了质疑。他引用实证研究指出，由于享乐适应、地位竞争，以及债务和通勤带来的难以适应的压力，拥有住房并未带来长期的幸福感提升。在财务层面上，购房会产生严重的不可收回持有成本——即房产税、日常维护与结构折旧，以及股本的机会成本；菲利克斯将这些成本归纳为基准的5%年度使用成本法则，用于与同等租金进行比较。尽管购房提供了一种强制储蓄机制并能对冲通胀，但相比租房的灵活性，它也带来了地域流动性受限和价格下行波动的风险。菲利克斯说明，住房决策最终应服务于日常生活方式需求、人际关系和自主性，而非投机性的财富积累目标。针对德国、美国和瑞士的实证研究表明，平均而言，房主并不比租房者更幸福，这主要是由于情感预测错误、享乐适应以及闲暇时间的减少。 (1:47) 拥有住房的不可收回持有成本可通过5%法则进行估算：1%用于房产税，1%用于结构维护与折旧，以及相对于分散化股票投资组合的3%净股本机会成本。 (9:17) 根据5%法则，购买一套价值100万美元的房产每月会产生大约4,166美元（每年50,000美元）的不可收回使用成本，这意味着以低于该水平的价格租住同等房产在财务上更为有利。 (10:05) 包括罗伯特·席勒追溯至1628年的数据以及涵盖16个国家的“万物回报率”研究在内的长期历史数据集表明，实际住宅资本增值年均仅为0.2%至1.1%。 (8:27)

Reading summary

Ben Felix challenges the conventional dogma that renting is financially wasteful, arguing that renting is often equal or superior to homeownership both financially and psychologically once unrecoverable carrying costs, capital opportunity costs, and behavioral adaptations are accounted for. Psychological Misconceptions and Hedonic Adaptation (1:47) Behavioural research indicates that the anticipated happiness of owning a home is largely an illusion driven by flawed affective forecasting. Drawing on a 2010 study on extrinsic values, Felix notes that acquiring real estate frequently stems from external motivations such as social status, which leads buyers to systematically overestimate the emotional payoff of property milestones while underestimating ongoing operational frictions. Once acquired, hedonic adaptation neutralizes the home's emotional impact, turning it into a background condition of life rather than a source of continuous joy. Empirical findings consistently reinforce this gap. A 2020 German study found that renters transitioning to homeownership significantly overestimated long-term life satisfaction gains, while a 2011 American study revealed homeowners experienced greater housing-related distress and logged fewer hours in active leisure. Similar conclusions emerge from Swiss (2019) and American (2017) datasets: after controlling for income, property quality, and health, homeowners reported no greater day-to-day happiness than renters and spent substantially more time on household chores and maintenance. Positional Goods, Commuting, and Debt Friction (3:46) Because residential real estate functions as a positional good, subjective satisfaction depends heavily on comparisons with peers. Citing a 2019 study on the 'McMansions effect' in U.S. suburbs, Felix explains that when larger homes are built within a neighborhood, nearby homeowners report declining satisfaction with their existing properties, frequently reacting by discounting their homes and taking on additional leverage to upscale. Furthermore, home purchases can lock buyers into chronic, unadaptable negative stressors. Unlike small, frequent experiential purchases that provide lasting well-being, homeownership often involves heavy financial leverage and lengthy commutes. Referencing Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton's research, Felix points out that debt load is a stronger negative predictor of happiness than income and contributes directly to marital friction. Similarly, human physiology never fully adapts to heavy traffic congestion, meaning buyers who move far from job centers to afford larger homes trade an asset they quickly take for granted for a daily commute that permanently elevates stress hormones. Unrecoverable Costs and the 5% Rule (6:26) Failing to recognize the unrecoverable carrying costs of property creates a skewed comparison against renting. While rent is an explicit outlay, owning incurs property taxes (roughly 1% of property value annually) and continuous physical depreciation and maintenance (modeled at roughly 1% per year, backed by historical data and Statistics Canada's 1.5% structural depreciation factor). Felix emphasizes that maintenance costs are inevitable: owners either pay cash to preserve the asset or absorb the cost later through a lower sale price. The final hidden cost is the opportunity cost of equity. Nobel laureate Robert Shiller's analysis found historical real residential price appreciation averaged only 0.2% to 0.4% annually, while the multi-country historical study 'The Rate of Return on Everything' identified a 1.1% real return. Comparing a conservative 1.0% expected real return on housing against a net 4.0% expected real return on globally diversified equities reveals a 3.0% net opportunity cost of home equity. Combining 1% property taxes, 1% maintenance, and a 3% equity opportunity cost yields a 5.0% annual user cost ('imputed rent'). Under this rule, a $1,000,000 home carries an unrecoverable user cost of approximately $4,166 per month ($50,000 annually); renting an equivalent home for less makes renting financially superior. Mobility Risks, Forced Savings, and Lifestyle Context (11:26) Homeownership presents distinct structural trade-offs. Mortgages act as an automatic forced savings mechanism that benefits individuals who lack the discipline to regularly invest savings into financial assets. Owning also hedges long-term rent inflation. However, it imposes severe illiquidity and downside price risk if an owner is forced to relocate during a localized market downturn. Renters retain high flexibility to adjust their dwellings, neighborhood choices, and career opportunities without transaction frictions. Illustrating the primacy of lifestyle over financial speculation, Felix shares his personal trajectory: after renting for his entire adult life in the city near his workplace, he purchased a rural home only after securing permanent remote work. His decision was guided by proximity to nature, specific hobby requirements, proximity to family, and a total absence of rural rental listings. In both phases, housing decisions were dictated by actual living requirements rather than an expectation of outsized capital gains. Ultimately, the evidence shows that homeownership is neither a guaranteed path to superior wealth accumulation nor a driver of higher life satisfaction. Felix concludes that housing decisions should be grounded in transparent cost accounting—factoring in unrecoverable expenses and opportunity costs—and aligned with personal lifestyle needs rather than societal pressure or speculative return assumptions.

精炼阅读摘要

PWL Capital投资组合经理Ben Felix指出，大众普遍认为“租房等于浪费钱”是一种误区；在财务回报与主观幸福感两方面，租房往往是优于买房的选择，购房决策应当由生活方式与不可收回成本驱动，而非盲目的财富增值预期。情感预测偏差与购房幸福感幻觉 (1:47) Felix引用行为科学研究指出，人类在情感预测上存在严重缺陷，容易高估买房等外在目标对幸福感的提振作用。德国2020年的一项研究显示，租房者在搬入自住房后，对其长期生活满意度提升幅度的预测显著偏高，外在价值观主导者这一偏差尤为严重。瑞士2019年控制财富、健康和住房质量等变量的研究发现，业主并不比租房者更快乐，部分指标甚至更低；美国2011年的研究同样表明，业主在主动休闲和恢复性活动上花费的时间显著减少，在居住上承受了更多心理压力。这主要归因于享乐适应：房产很快从愿望转变为中性背景，而并非持续带来快乐的源泉。社会攀比与难以适应的负面压力 (3:46) 房产作为典型的地位商品（positional goods），其心理价值极易受到社会比较的侵蚀。2019年关于“豪宅效应”（McMansion Effect）的研究发现，当社区建造出超大户型时，周围邻居对其现有住宅的主观满意度急剧下滑，进而驱使他们借债升级至更大房产以维持相对地位。与此同时，买房常伴随着无法产生享乐适应的慢性压力。Dunn与Norton在《Happy Money》中指出，负债比收入更能预测幸福感的缺失，高额债务往往导致抑郁和家庭矛盾；此外，为了追求更大面积而拉长通勤时间会导致压力激素长期居高不下，使购房者彻底陷入“用无法适应的折磨交换迅速适应的空间”这一负向博弈。不可收回成本与“5%法则”测算 (6:26) 针对“租房是替房东还贷”的观点，Felix拆解了买房必须承担的三大不可收回持有成本：一是房产税，通常约为房屋总市值的1%；二是维护费用与物理折旧，在扣除土地比重后基准年化成本约为1%，与《The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870 to 2015》指出的1%至2%历史区间及加拿大统计局1.5%的建筑折旧测算相符；三是资金沉没带来的股权机会成本。通过将分散化的全球股票投资组合预期扣费后4.0%的实际年化回报率，减去根据历史长期数据测算的住宅房产约1.0%的实际资本升值率，股权机会成本约为3.0%。将这三项相加即可推导得出5.0%的自住房使用者成本（或称虚拟租金）。灵活性风险与生活方式主导的权衡 (11:26) 5%法则意味着一套100万美元的房产，其对应的无差异等价月租金约为4166美元；若能以等于或低于该价格租下同等房屋，在财务上租房更具优势。尽管按揭贷款能提供强制储蓄功能并对冲长期房租通胀，但租房者只要具备投资纪律，同样能积累相当的净资产，同时保留无与伦比的迁徙灵活性。自住房面临严重的短期流动性与下行价格风险，一旦发生工作变动或被迫在市场低迷期搬迁，房屋交易摩擦巨大。Felix分享其个人经历说明，他在成年后大部分时间选择在城市中心租房以避免通勤，直至可以完全远程工作且追求特定乡村自然环境时才购置首套房，这一决策完全由生活方式而非财务投机驱动。买房并非通往财富与幸福的普适法则。面对历史均值仅约1%的实际房产年化资本升值预期，过度依赖过去的区域性暴涨将带来严重误判；决策者应理性权衡5%的使用者成本底线与对个人时间、自由度的影响，让居住回归服务生活本质。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本内容由 PWL Capital 的投资组合经理 Ben Felix 于 2021 年 11 月 2 日发布在 YouTube 频道。视频简介指出，住房决策需要综合权衡财务与非财务影响，现实中不存在放之四海而皆准的模式，且在许多情况下，租房无论在财务回报还是主观幸福感维度上都是比买房更优的选择。 ## TL;DR Ben Felix 结合行为心理学与实证金融学，打破了“买房才能积累财富和获得幸福”的传统社会偏见。从心理学维度看，购房者往往受情感预测偏差驱动，入住后会迅速产生享乐适应，并因社会攀比、房贷压力及漫长通勤而侵蚀幸福感；从财务维度看，通过量化包含房产税、折旧维护及机会成本的“5% 法则”，租房者只要保持投资纪律，其长期财富积累完全可以匹敌房主。最终，住房决策的本质应服务于个人真实的生活方式与日常体验，而非被外在地位象征或投资幻觉所绑架。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期视频洋溢着冷静、克制而极具说服力的学院派理性气息，主讲人条理清晰、语调平稳，以数据和扎实的实证研究为刃，逐层解构社会对房产所有权的狂热迷思。演讲不仅具有敏锐的批判性，还带着一种把复杂财务模型拆解得清晰透彻的冷幽默与知性美。在结尾分享自己近期买房的个人抉择时，语境巧妙转为坦诚与温和，展现出知行合一的通透感，让观众在卸下买房焦虑的同时感受到深度的心理释怀。 ## Bulletin - [01:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=66s) 实证研究打破有房即幸福的迷思，由于情感预测偏差和享乐适应，房主在控制收入与健康等变量后的主观幸福感并不优于租房者，且更容易被房屋维护和家务琐事侵占主动休闲时间。 - [03:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=213s) 房产作为典型的“位置性物品”易引发社会攀比与买家懊悔，而高额抵押贷款债务与漫长的通勤时间属于人类神经系统极难适应的慢性压力源，会直接侵蚀日常幸福感。 - [09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=557s) 自有住房的隐性使用成本约为房屋市值的5%（包含1%房产税、1%维护折旧及3%股票相对房产的权益机会成本），若同品质月租金低于此阈值，租房在财务上完全等价甚至更优。 - [12:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=777s) 住房决策的核心应取决于个人具体阶段的生活方式需求与自由度，而非外在社会地位压力或不切实际的房产暴击增值预期。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=0s) 在扣除全部持有成本并进行自律投资的前提下，租客与购房者的长期财富累积完全可以处于同一水平线，“租房等于扔钱”是典型的思维误区。 - [01:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=66s) 人们在面对购房等重大决策时普遍存在“情感预测偏差”，往往大幅高估买房能带来的长期心理回报。 - [01:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=66s) 跨国多样本实证研究（美、瑞、德）显示，房主的综合幸福感与租客相比并无显著提升，甚至在即时快乐体验上可能更低。 - [01:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=66s) “享乐适应”机制导致新居环境在入住后迅速沦为日常生活的既定背景，无法持续提供增量情绪收益。 - [03:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=213s) 房产属于高度敏感的“位置性物品”，社区中出现更大体量住宅的“豪宅效应”会直接拉低邻居对自住房的满意度并刺激负债。 - [03:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=213s) 相较于巨额物质消费，频繁、小额的体验式消费不会引发享乐适应，能更有效地带来长久的生活幸福感。 - [05:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=336s) 家庭债务负担比收入高低更能预测痛苦程度，巨额房贷带来的财务紧张是难以适应的慢性焦虑来源。 - [05:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=336s) 牺牲通勤时间换取大居住面积是糟糕的交换，通勤带来的生理压力无法适应，会彻底抵消空间扩大的微弱收益。 - [06:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=387s) 房屋物理损耗与工艺技术更迭带来的“功能性折旧”不可避免，历史长期数据显示年均维护与折旧成本保守估计在总价值的1%左右。 - [06:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=387s) 全球历史长期数据表明房产扣除通胀后的年均真实升值率仅在0.2%至1.1%之间，显著落后于股票资产的长期预期回报。 - [09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=557s) “5%法则”量化了自住房的总使用成本：1%房产税 + 1%折旧维护 + 3%股票对房产的权益机会成本，无论买房与否每个人都在支付居住成本。 - [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) 按揭贷款的核心优势在于通过强制储蓄约束消费，租房者若想实现同等财富累积，必须具备极强的财务纪律将结余资金长期定投。 - [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) 买房虽然对冲了租金上涨风险，但牺牲了流动性，在市场下行期若面临搬迁需要承担巨大的资产折价风险。 - [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) 决定主观幸福感的根本是人际关系、技能掌握、大自然接触与掌控感，而非房屋所有权本身。 - [12:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=777s) 无论是长期租房还是购入“终身居所”，理性的住房决策必须以生活方式匹配度为唯一导向，而非屈从于外部社会期望。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=0s) 租房与买房之争：走出传统观念与社会压力的误区房屋的租买决策不仅会对个人的长期财务状况产生深远影响，更直接决定了我们身处何地、每天如何分配自己的时间。这项重大抉择需要审慎权衡财务与非财务层面的影响，以及二者之间错综复杂的相互作用。现实中并不存在一种放之四海而皆准的绝对正确居住模式。然而，社会上长期充斥着“买房才是立足之本”的观念，将租房贬低为虚掷金钱。来自 PWL Capital 的投资组合经理 Ben Felix 指出，这种根深蒂固的传统智慧经不起严谨推敲。在许多现实情况下，无论从纯粹的财务收益考量，还是从主观幸福感的科学视角来看，租房都是比买房更为优越的选择。理清这一问题的关键，在于破除“付房租就是把钱扔进水里”的思维定势。事实上，在扣除全部持有成本后，租房者与购房者的最终财富累积完全可以处于同一水平线。但在深入探讨复杂的财务测算之前，必须首先从人类心理学与幸福感的研究出发，审视房子究竟能否带来预期的快乐。 Ben Felix 在开篇便明确表达了自己的核心论断，他表示：“在许多情况下，与传统智慧和社会压力相反，无论在财务层面还是从主观幸福感的角度来看，租房都是比买房更好的选择。” ### [01:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=66s) 房主真的比租客更幸福吗？情感预测偏差与享乐适应撇开财务因素不谈，如果买房确实能显著提升人的幸福感，那么反对买房的理由确实不多。但实证研究给出的答案却令人大跌眼镜：人们在预测未来的情绪体验时往往表现得极度糟糕，尤其是在面对房产这类重大消费时，往往存在严重的“情感预测偏差”（Affective Forecasting Error）。 2010 年发表的经典论文《外在价值取向与情感预测：高估回报，低估代价》深入剖析了这一机制。研究表明，那些坚信拥有住房等物质财富会带来幸福的人，通常具有明显的“外在目标导向”（如追求金钱、声望、形象与社会地位）。与追求个人成长、亲密关系和社区归属的“内在目标导向”人群相比，外在导向型人群整体幸福感更低，且更容易严重高估实现外在目标所能带来的心理回报。2020 年一项基于德国长期数据的研究进一步证实，人们普遍大幅高估了从租房搬入自有住房所能获得的长期生活满意度，而这种认知偏差在外在动机强烈的人群中表现得尤为剧烈。跨国实证数据同样打破了“有房即幸福”的迷思： - **美国样本（2011年研究《美国梦还是美国错觉》）**：在控制了收入、房屋质量和健康状况后，数据表明房主的综合幸福感指标并不优于租房者。相反，房主从房子中感受到的痛苦明显更多，其根源在于两者的日常时间分配——房主花费在主动休闲等愉悦活动上的时间显著减少，反而被大量家务与房屋维护所捆绑。 - **瑞士样本（2019年研究）**：在控制了财富、收入、就业、健康和居住品质等关键变量后，瑞士的有房者在幸福感上与租客毫无差异，甚至在部分维度上比租客更不快乐。 - **德美对比样本（2011年与2017年研究）**：德国研究仅发现了房产所有权与生活满意度之间极其微弱的正相关；而 2017 年针对美国人群的调查显示，虽然房主在反思性生活评价上有轻微提升，但他们在日常生活中体验到的即时快乐强度却低于租客，且需要将大量时间耗费在房屋打理上。这种落差背后的核心心理学驱动机制是“享乐适应”（Hedonic Adaptation）。当人们搬进新家后，环境的改善很快就会变成日常生活的既定背景，不再提供源源不断的情绪刺激。正如 Ben Felix 所分析的那样：“我们高估了买房会让自己快乐多少，但一旦真正住进去，房子就变成了生活的既定条件，而不再是一个渴望的目标，它对我们日常幸福感的影响也就被中和抵消了。”2010 年的论文《如果金钱没有让你感到幸福，那你可能花错了地方》揭示了一个本质规律：决定主观幸福感的关键在于我们如何度过每日的时光，而非房屋产权这类静态的客观生活境遇。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 购房对主观幸福感影响的心理机制演变 accDescr: 展示购房者从买房前的情感预测偏差，到购房后的享乐适应与时间挤压，最终幸福感被中和的过程。 subgraph Phase1["买房前：认知预期阶段"] A["外在目标驱动 （追求社会地位与财产象征）"] --> B["情感预测偏差 （大幅高估买房带来的长期快乐）"] end subgraph Phase2["入住后：现实碰撞阶段"] B --> C["享乐适应发生 （房屋迅速沦为理所当然的背景）"] B --> D["时间挤压效应 （维护打理侵占主动休闲时间）"] end subgraph Phase3["最终结果"] C --> E["日常情绪收益被中和抵消"] D --> E E --> F["生活满意度并无实质性提升"] end ``` ### [03:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=213s) 物质消费的陷阱：“豪宅效应”与买家的懊悔大宗物质采购往往伴随着挥之不去的“买家懊悔”（Buyer's Remorse）。2010 年的研究《物质消费与体验消费的相对相对性》发现，人们对物质消费的满意度普遍低于体验类消费。其核心原因在于，物质产品极易引发对“未选择选项”的反复纠结，并且其满足感极易遭到外部对比的侵蚀——无论是对比市场上其他房源、对比同户型的价格变动，还是与周围邻居的住宅相比。房产在本质上是一种高度敏感的“位置性物品”（Positional Goods）。它的吸引力不仅来自于遮风避雨的物理功能，更取决于它在社交圈层参照系中所处的位置。人类天生具有社会比较的本能，而这种横向对比对个人幸福感具有破坏性的影响。2019 年发表的重磅研究《豪宅效应：美国郊区最大房屋面积与位置外部性》揭示了残酷的现实： - 当社区中出现处于面积顶端的大型新建住宅（McMansion）时，邻居对自己现有住房面积的满意度会骤然下降。 - 这种负面外部性对原本就住在大房子里的人更为明显，且随着物理距离的拉近而愈发强烈。 - 长期暴露在更大豪宅阴影下的房主，往往会主观低估自己房屋的价值，进而更容易产生置换更大房屋的冲动，并背负起更沉重的债务负担。心理学与行为经济学提出，破除这种心理损耗的最佳策略是用频繁、小额的“体验式消费”取代单次、巨额的“物质性消费”。无论是请朋友吃顿便餐、报名参加感兴趣的技能课程、投入一项沉浸式的业余爱好，还是为他人购买礼物，这些体验都不会引发享乐适应，能够带来持续的情绪滋养。相反，买房恰恰站在了体验式消费的绝对对立面。Ben Felix 在剖析这种社会攀比机制时犀利地指出：“房产属于位置性物品，这意味着它们的吸引力不仅来自于作为居住场所的内在属性，还来自于它与同龄人房屋相比较的结果。” ### [05:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=336s) 无法适应的慢性压力：巨额负债与漫长通勤人类的心理机制虽然能够快速适应宽敞的居住空间，却极难适应两类特定的慢性负面压力：高额负债与交通拥堵。对于绝大多数工薪家庭而言，购置房产往往意味着背负巨额抵押贷款，进而极易陷入“房奴”（House Poor）的窘境。在畅销著作《快乐金钱：快乐消费的科学》中，学者 Elizabeth Dunn 与 Michael Norton 明确指出，尽管个人收入与幸福感之间的相关性相对微弱，但“支付账单的困难程度”与痛苦感之间却存在着极其强大的关联。数据显示，家庭负债规模越高，幸福指数就越低；而在负债严重的夫妻之间，婚姻矛盾和日常争吵的频率也会成倍上升。Ben Felix 援引书中原话强调道：“正如邓恩和诺顿所言，‘我们欠了多少债务，比我们挣了多少收入更能预测我们的幸福程度。’” 另一个人类神经系统无法适应的折磨是漫长的交通通勤。生理学研究证实，即使经过数年日复一日的上下班通勤，人们在早晚高峰拥堵路况下抵达办公室时，体内的皮质醇等应激压力激素依然会飙升到极高水平。许多购房者为了追求更宽敞的居住面积，选择迁往远离市中心的偏远郊区。这种决策往往是一场灾难：他们会在短短几个月内迅速对多出来的室内空间产生享乐适应，却不得不日复一日地承受通勤带来的慢性身心折磨，最终导致日常幸福感大幅净滑坡。 | 压力与消费类型 | 是否容易发生享乐适应 | 对日常幸福感的长期影响 | 现实典型特征 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **更大的房屋面积** | 是（极快适应） | 迅速归于平淡，中和为生活背景 | 入住后很快失去最初的兴奋感 | | **巨额抵押贷款** | 否（极难适应） | 持续输出慢性焦虑，侵蚀安全感 | 现金流紧张，引发家庭矛盾 | | **高峰交通通勤** | 否（无法适应） | 持续引发高应激激素与情绪损耗 | 每日身心俱疲，抵消居住舒适度 | | **小额体验消费** | 否（历久弥新） | 提供持久、无比较损耗的正向反馈 | 聚餐、爱好、旅行等日常体验 | ### [06:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=387s) 解构真实账单：被忽视的房产持有成本与机会成本如果租房在财务上是一项注定亏损的糟糕选择，那么上述所有关于幸福感的心理学探讨都将沦为空谈。但 Ben Felix 强调，租房不仅不是糟糕的财务选择，其综合收益甚至可以与买房平分秋色。人们之所以普遍误以为买房更划算，是因为没有看清房屋所有权背后复杂且隐秘的隐性成本。租房的财务成本清晰透明： - 每月固定的租金支出； - 租客保险（通常比房屋产权保险便宜得多）； - 日常水电燃气杂费。相比之下，购房的真实成本则繁复得多，主要由四大核心板块构成： 1. **房产税（Property Taxes）**：根据所在地理区域差异显著，但在测算模型中通常按房屋总市值的 1% 估算。房产税与房租在本质上毫无二致，都是为了换取市政公共服务而支付的消耗性支出，没有任何剩余资产价值。 2. **房屋维护与折旧（Maintenance & Depreciation）**：房屋在物理本质上是不断损耗贬值的消耗品。这种贬值包含双重维度：一是因日常使用造成的自然物理磨损；二是由于建筑工艺革新、建造标准提升以及新型建材普及所导致的“功能性折旧（技术淘汰）”，使得老旧房屋逐渐失去吸引力。 3. **房屋保险与持有杂费**。 4. **房屋净值的机会成本（Opportunity Cost of Equity）**。针对房屋折旧与维护，屋主实际上没有任何逃避的空间：你要么在持有期间源源不断地支付现金进行维修翻新，要么就必须在未来的转售价格中吞下折旧带来的折价损失。长期经济史权威文献《万物收益率：1870-2015》（*The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870 to 2015*）通过横跨一个多世纪的数据测算，证实住宅的历史年化维护成本通常落在房屋价值的 1% 至 2% 之间。加拿大统计局在测算消费者价格指数（CPI）篮子时，亦将建筑物年折旧率设定为 1.5%。综合考虑土地不折旧的比例折算后，将房屋每年的维护折旧成本保守假定为总价值的 1% 是高度审慎且符合现实的。许多人在宣扬房产投资神话时，往往对维护成本视而不见。Ben Felix 幽默而客观地指出：“房屋维护成本往往会在不经意间悄然累积，当人们向你夸耀自己的房子升值了多少时，通常都不会把这些支出计算在内——每周去一趟家得宝（Home Depot）采购修缮材料，日积月累下来就是一笔巨款。” 除了肉眼可见的修缮开销，更为庞大却往往被完全忽略的是“净值机会成本”。当大量资金被沉淀在房屋净值中时，这笔钱便失去了配置于其他高收益资产的机会。以在免税账户中配置低成本的全市场股票指数基金为例，房产的长期真实升值幅度远逊于多数人的想象。诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗伯特·席勒（Robert Shiller）在巨著《非理性繁荣》中，梳理了自 1628 年以来的全球长期房地产数据，发现扣除通胀后，全球房产的年均真实升值率仅在 0.2% 至 0.4% 之间；而在《万物收益率》对 16 个国家自 1870 年至 2015 年长达 145 年的跟踪中，房产的年均真实价格涨幅也仅为 1.1% 左右。近些年部分热门城市的房价暴涨只是特例，绝不能作为推导未来长期资产回报的基准。 ### [09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=557s) 5% 法则：量化自有住房的使用成本（User Cost）在当前的房地产市场环境中，极端的“房价比”（Price-to-Rent Ratio）属于历史罕见的异常现象。历史经验表明，这种失衡往往不是通过租金上涨来修正，而是通过房价下跌来回归均值。为了科学衡量买房的真实财务成本，PWL Capital 研究团队在最新的财务规划假设更新中指出，全股票投资组合（100% Equity）的长期预期实际年化回报率为 4.28%。在扣除基金管理费、预扣税等持有成本后，保守按 4% 计算；而房地产的长期实际回报率预估约为 1%。两者相差 3%，这正是将自有资本锁定在房产而非股市中的“权益机会成本”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 住房使用成本构成图 accDescr: 展示构成5%房屋使用成本的三大组成部分：房产税、维护成本与机会成本。 subgraph CostComponents["自有住房的年度使用成本 (合计 5%)"] A["房产税 (Property Tax) 1%"] B["房屋维护与折旧 (Maintenance) 1%"] C["权益机会成本 (Opportunity Cost) 3%（股票 4% 减去房产 1%）"] end CostComponents --> Total["隐含租金 / 平衡租金 (Imputed Rent) 房产总市值的 5% / 年"] ``` 结合 1% 的房产税、1% 的房屋维护折旧费用，以及 3% 的权益机会成本，拥有房屋的年度总“使用成本”（User Cost）或“隐含租金”（Imputed Rent）恰好为房屋市值的 5%。换句话说，无论买房还是租房，住户实际上每天都在支付居住成本。即便申请了按揭贷款，虽然表面上减少了初期的资本沉淀，但伴随房贷带来的巨大现金流硬性支出，平衡租购成本的比率依然落在 5% 左右。Ben Felix 形象地总结道：“Another way to think about this is that you're paying rent whether you own a home or not.”（换个角度想，无论你是否买房，你其实都在支付租金。） - **100 万美元房屋的对照基准**：年使用成本为 5 万美元，折合每月约 4,166 美元；若能以相同或更低的月租金租下同品质房屋，从财务角度看租房在经济上完全等价甚至更优。 - **投资风险偏好的影响**：进取型投资者（如偏向小盘股和价值股）由于投资预期回报更高，其权益机会成本随之上升，从而推高平衡租金的门槛；稳健保守型投资者对应的机会成本和租金阈值则相对更低。 - **税收环境考量**：在加拿大，自住住房免征资本利得税；上述计算默认租房者在免税或递延税账户（如 TFSA 和 RRSP）中进行投资。若租房者在应税账户中投资，其税后机会成本降低，对应的等效租金水平也会相应下调。 --- ### [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=686s) 强制储蓄、流动性与非财务维度的权衡除了单纯的数字对比，买房与租房在行为金融和现实生活场景中各有优劣。按揭贷款的一大隐形优势是“强制储蓄”机制，因为普通人往往很难抵挡消费诱惑，容易漏掉养老金（RRSP）的自律定投，但几乎没人敢轻易断供房贷。因此，租房者若想在财富累积上匹敌购房者，必须具备极强的财务纪律，严格将省下的现金流用于长期投资。此外，自有住房能够锁定未来长期的名义居住支出，在面对恶劣的市场通胀与房东涨租冲动时，起到了住房支出对冲工具的作用。然而，对冲住房成本的前提是将其作为终身居所（Forever Home）。对于可能面临变动的人来说，房产的短期价格波动是一项巨大的流动性风险。租房者享有极高的居住自由度，一旦工作调动、邻里不合或房屋出现问题，可以随时搬迁；反观购房者，一旦遭遇下行周期又不得不卖房搬迁，将面临沉重的资产折价损失。Ben Felix 一针见血地指出：“Sure, owners can't be rent-evicted by a greedy landlord in a rising market, but they're taking on a lot more price risk in the event that they need to move in a falling market.”（在行情上涨时，房主确实不必担心被贪婪的房东驱逐，但在市场下行时，一旦他们需要搬家，就必须承担大得多的资产贬值风险。） - **幸福感的研究结论**：多项幸福感与住房关系的学术文献表明，拥有自住房本身并不会让人的幸福感高于租房者，即便很多人在买房前坚信自己买房后会更快乐。 - **决定幸福的关键要素**：身处自然之中、精通某项技能、与外部世界保持连接、拥有掌控感以及拥有稳固的人际关系，这些因素对主观幸福感的预测效力远超拥有一套房产。 - **通勤代价**：统计表明，购房者比租房者更易被迫接受更长时间的通勤，而通勤正是幸福感的主要杀手之一。 --- ### [12:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=777s) 个人经历分享与理性决策原则从纯财务视角出发，只要租房者理解拥有房屋的真实使用成本，并把实际租金支出控制在该范围之内、将节余资金理性投资，长期累积的净财富完全可以匹敌甚至超越购房者。虽然过去十年加拿大楼市带来了惊人的暴富效应，但把未来压在不切实际的持续高增值预期上，极易招致财务隐患。住房决策的核心应当是生活方式的选择，而非盲目的外在虚荣或投机冲动。带着些许笑意，Ben Felix 在视频最后公开了自己的最新情况：在成年后一直坚持租房的他，近期终于买下了一套属于自己的“永久居所”（Forever Home）。这一决策绝非出于对房产增值的执念，而是因为这套位于清幽之地的房屋完美契合了他目前的生活方式：步行即可到达设施齐全的小镇、徒步小径和水域；配有足以容纳个人爱好工作台的大车库；开车 45 分钟就能看望父母；加之他可以居家办公，完全免去了通勤烦恼。由于当地根本没有符合要求的出租房源，买房成了顺理成章的决定。回顾以往在市区工作必须每日通勤时，由于租房房源丰富且步行即可上班，租房就是当时最明智的安排。Ben Felix 总结道：“In both cases, I made the decision based on what worked for my lifestyle, not some extrinsic or financial motivation to be a property owner.”（在这两种情况下，我做决定的依据都是哪种方式更符合我的生活模式，而不是为了成为一名业主这种外在的名声或财务诱因。） ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=0s) 在许多情况下，与传统智慧和社会压力相反，无论在财务层面还是从主观幸福感的角度来看，租房都是比买房更好的选择。 — Ben Felix > [05:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=336s) 我们欠了多少债务，比我们挣了多少收入更能预测我们的幸福程度。 — Ben Felix > [01:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=66s) 我们高估了买房会让自己快乐多少，但一旦真正住进去，房子就变成了生活的既定条件，而不再是一个渴望的目标，它对我们日常幸福感的影响也就被中和抵消了。 — Ben Felix > [03:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=213s) 房产属于位置性物品，这意味着它们的吸引力不仅来自于作为居住场所的内在属性，还来自于它与同龄人房屋相比较的结果。 — Ben Felix > [06:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8&t=387s) 房屋维护成本往往会在不经意间悄然累积，当人们向你夸耀自己的房子升值了多少时，通常都不会把这些支出计算在内——每周去一趟家得宝（Home Depot）采购修缮材料，日积月累下来就是一笔巨款。 — Ben Felix ## Mentioned Ben Felix, PWL Capital, Elizabeth Dunn, Michael Norton, Robert Shiller, Home Depot, Canada Post, 加拿大统计局, Happy Money, Irrational Exuberance, The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870 to 2015 ## Video description Meet with PWL Capital: https://calendly.com/d/3vm-t2j-h3p Making the housing decision requires careful consideration of both the financial and non-financial impacts, and the way that they interact with each other. There is no universally right way to approach housing. In many cases, contrary to conventional wisdom and societal pressure, renting is a better option than owning, both financially and from the perspective of subjective well-being. Referenced in this video: Extrinsic Value Orientation and Affective Forecasting: Overestimating the Rewards, Underestimating the Costs https://sdtheory.s3.amazonaws.com/SDT/documents/2010_SheldonGunzNicholsFerguson_JOP.pdf Does the Dream of Home Ownership Rest Upon Biased Beliefs? A Test Based on Predicted and Realized Life Satisfaction https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3660256 The American Dream or the American Delusion? The Private and External Benefits of Homeownership for Women https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1877163 Homeownership and Happiness: Evidence for Switzerland https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/bitstream/11475/18640/3/2019_Hofmann-Umbricht_Homeownership-and-happiness-Switzerland_SREJ.pdf The relationship between homeownership and life satisfaction in Germany https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/51372/1/672468557.pdf Is a Fixer-Upper Actually a Downer? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2017.1367317 If Money Doesn't Make You Happy Then You Probably Aren't Spending It Right https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/danielgilbert/files/if-money-doesnt-make-you-happy.nov-12-20101.pdf The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20053039/ The McMansion Effect: Top House Size and Positional Externalities in U.S. Suburbs https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3378131 Book: Happy Money https://dunn.psych.ubc.ca/book-happy-money/ Shelter in the Canadian CPI: An overview https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/62f0014m/62f0014m2017001-eng.htm Theory of Homes and Jobs https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/homejobs.pdf ------------------ Follow Ben Felix on - Twitter: https://twitter.com/benjaminwfelix - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaminwfelix/ Visit Rational Reminder: www.https://rationalreminder.ca/ Follow the Rational Reminder on: - Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/RationalRemind Visit PWL Capital: https://www.pwlcapital.com/teams/passmore-felix/ Follow PWL Capital on: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/PWLCapital - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PWLCapital - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pwl-capital/ You can find the Rational Reminder podcast on Google Podcasts: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYXRpb25hbHJlbWluZGVyLmxpYnN5bi5jb20vcnNz Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-rational-reminder-podcast/id1426530582?mt=2 Spotify Podcasts: https://open.spotify.com/show/6RHWTH9iW7hdnA7eAg7ukO?si=hjZNfLKuSjSeWX38GPqhVA ------------------ [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Golcxjpi8)

Source quotes

[0:00] Ben Felix: 在许多情况下，与传统智慧和社会压力相反，无论在财务层面还是从主观幸福感的角度来看，租房都是比买房更好的选择。 [5:36] Ben Felix: 我们欠了多少债务，比我们挣了多少收入更能预测我们的幸福程度。 [1:06] Ben Felix: 我们高估了买房会让自己快乐多少，但一旦真正住进去，房子就变成了生活的既定条件，而不再是一个渴望的目标，它对我们日常幸福感的影响也就被中和抵消了。 [3:33] Ben Felix: 房产属于位置性物品，这意味着它们的吸引力不仅来自于作为居住场所的内在属性，还来自于它与同龄人房屋相比较的结果。 [6:27] Ben Felix: 房屋维护成本往往会在不经意间悄然累积，当人们向你夸耀自己的房子升值了多少时，通常都不会把这些支出计算在内——每周去一趟家得宝（Home Depot）采购修缮材料，日积月累下来就是一笔巨款。

Source quotes

[0:00] Ben Felix: In many cases, contrary to conventional wisdom and societal pressure, renting is a better option than owning, both financially and from the perspective of well-being. [5:05] Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton: What we owe is a bigger predictor of our happiness than what we make. [1:47] Ben Felix: We overestimate how much happier we will be by purchasing a home, but once we live there, the home becomes a condition of life rather than an aspiration and its impact on our daily well-being is neutralized. [6:26] Ben Felix: You either pay for the cost of maintenance with cash as you consume the home over time, or you pay for the depreciation through a lower sale price in the future. [11:26] Ben Felix: Buying a home today on the expectation of unrealistically high housing appreciation in the future is more likely to do harm than good. [3:46] Ben Felix: Homes are positional goods, meaning that their appeal comes from, not only their intrinsic property as a place to live, but also from how it compares to the homes of peers. [11:26] Ben Felix: The literature relating happiness to home ownership makes it clear that homeowners are not happier than renters just because they own a home, even if they expected to be when they decided to buy. [11:26] Ben Felix: Sure, owners can't be rent-evicted by a greedy landlord in a rising market, but they're taking on a lot more price risk in the event that they need to move in a falling market.

Original transcript

[0:00] - The rent versus buy decision for housing [0:02] can have a significant financial impact, [0:04] but it can also play an important role [0:06] in where we live and how we spend our time. [0:09] Making the housing decision requires careful consideration [0:12] of both the financial and non-financial impacts, [0:15] and the way that they interact with each other. [0:17] There is no universally right way to approach housing. [0:21] In many cases, contrary to conventional wisdom [0:23] and societal pressure, [0:25] renting is a better option than owning, [0:27] both financially and from the perspective of well-being. [0:31] I'm Ben Felix, Portfolio Manager at PWL Capital. [0:34] In this episode of Common Sense Investing, [0:36] I'm going to tell you how to decide [0:37] between renting and owning a home. [0:40] (bouncy rock music) [0:43] Renting a place to live is not throwing money away. [0:46] Financial outcomes for renters and owners can be comparable. [0:50] I'll explain why that's true later in this video, [0:52] but I wanna start with the non-financial considerations [0:54] of the rent versus buy decision. [0:56] Finances aside, if buying a home will make you happy, [1:00] there are a few good argument against it. [1:02] This raises the question: [1:04] are homeowners happier than renters? [1:06] People are really bad at forecasting [1:08] what will make them happy in the future, [1:10] particularly when it comes to major purchases. [1:13] The 2010 paper, Extrinsic Value Orientation [1:16] and Effective Forecasting. [1:17] Overestimating the Rewards, [1:18] Underestimating the Costs, [1:20] explains that people who believe materialistic achievements, [1:23] like owning a home, will make them happy [1:26] can be classified as having extrinsically motivated goals. [1:29] Other examples of extrinsic goals [1:31] are money, fame, image and status. [1:34] Compared to people with intrinsic goals, [1:36] like personal growth, intimacy and community, [1:39] extrinsically motivated people are less happy in general [1:42] and they overestimate the emotional benefits [1:44] of achieving their extrinsic goals. [1:47] True to this finding, a 2020 study using German data, [1:50] finds that people overestimate the long-run [1:53] life satisfaction gains derived [1:55] from moving from a rented home [1:56] to a privately owned property [1:58] and that this overestimation is more pronounced [2:01] for people with extrinsically motivated life goals. [2:04] The 2011 paper, The American Dream [2:06] or the American Delusion [2:08] uses a data set with housing consumption, [2:10] well-being measures and time use patterns [2:13] to find that after controlling for income, [2:15] housing quality, and health, [2:17] the homeowners in the sample are not better off than renters [2:19] by multiple measures of well-being. [2:21] Instead, they derive significantly [2:23] more pain from their home, [2:24] potentially due to the time used differences [2:26] between renters and owners in the sample. [2:29] Homeowners tended to spend less time [2:30] on enjoyable activities, like active leisure. [2:33] The 2019 study, Home Ownership and Happiness: [2:36] Evidence for Switzerland, [2:38] finds that Swiss homeowners are no happier [2:40] or are even less happy than renters [2:42] when other variables like wealth, income, employment, [2:44] health and housing quality are controlled for. [2:47] A 2011 study using a German sample [2:50] finds a marginal but positive relationship [2:51] between home ownership and life satisfaction, [2:54] while a 2017 study using a United States sample [2:57] finds slightly elevated reflective life satisfaction [3:00] for owners but finds that owners experience [3:02] less intense feelings of happiness than renters, [3:05] and that homeowners spend much more time [3:07] working on their home than renters do. [3:09] One of the driving issues here [3:11] is that people tend to hedonically adapt [3:13] to their circumstances, [3:15] meaning that a change in circumstances [3:16] does not have a lasting impact on how we feel day to day. [3:20] You can see the problem here. [3:21] We overestimate how much happier we will be [3:24] by purchasing a home, but once we live there, [3:26] the home becomes a condition of life [3:28] rather than an aspiration [3:29] and its impact on our daily well-being is neutralized. [3:33] In the 2010 paper, [3:34] If Money Doesn't Make You Happy, [3:35] Then You Probably Aren't Spending It Right, [3:37] the authors explained that experienced happiness [3:40] is shaped more by how we spend our time [3:42] than by stable life circumstances, [3:44] like how we pay for housing. [3:46] After making a major material purchase, like a home, [3:49] many people will suffer from buyer's remorse. [3:52] The 2010 paper, The Relative Relativity [3:54] of Material and Experiential Purchases, [3:56] finds in their sample that people are often less satisfied [4:00] by their material purchases than their experiential ones [4:03] because they're more likely to ruminate [4:04] about unchosen options with material purchases [4:07] and their satisfaction with their material possessions [4:09] is undermined by comparison to other available options, [4:13] to the same option at a different price, [4:15] and to the purchases of other individuals. [4:17] homes are positional goods, [4:19] meaning that their appeal comes from, [4:20] not only their intrinsic property as a place to live, [4:23] but also from how it compares to the homes of peers. [4:27] Humans innately compare themselves [4:29] to the people around them, [4:30] and empirically we know that comparison [4:32] matters a lot to happiness. [4:34] A 2019 study titled The McMansion Effect: [4:37] Top House Size and Positional Externalities in U.S. Suburbs, [4:41] finds that new constructions [4:42] at the top of the house size distribution [4:44] lower the satisfaction that neighbors derive [4:47] from their own house size. [4:48] These effects are stronger among people [4:50] living in larger houses and they decrease with distance [4:53] from the larger new constructions. [4:55] Homeowners exposed to the construction of larger houses [4:58] in their suburb put a lower price on their home, [5:00] are more likely to upscale to a larger home, [5:03] and they take on more debt. [5:04] One of the best ways to deal [5:06] with our poor affective forecasts, [5:08] hedonic adaptation, buyer's remorse and social comparison [5:12] is to make more frequent experiential purchases [5:15] rather than few big material ones. [5:17] Taking a friend out for dinner, [5:19] signing up for a class in an area of interest, [5:21] spending on an engaging hobby, [5:23] or buying things for other people [5:25] are all approaches to spending money [5:26] that bring persistent happiness that we do not adapt to. [5:30] Buying a home is the antithesis of small frequent purchases. [5:33] The term house poor comes to mind. [5:36] A circumstance that we do not tend to adapt to is debt, [5:39] which is, for most people, [5:40] a big part of purchasing a home. [5:42] In their book, "Happy Money: [5:43] The Science of Happier Spending," [5:45] Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton [5:47] explained that although the relationship [5:48] between income and happiness is fairly weak, [5:51] there is a stronger relationship between happiness [5:53] and difficulty paying the bills. [5:55] In other words, Dunn and Norton say, [5:57] "What we owe is a bigger predictor [5:59] "of our happiness than what we make." [6:01] Households with more debt exhibit less happiness, [6:04] and couples with more debt have more marital conflict. [6:07] Another circumstance that we don't adapt to [6:09] is commuting in traffic. [6:11] Even after years of commuting, [6:12] people who commute in traffic arrive at work [6:14] with higher levels of stress hormones. [6:17] This matters for people who move further away from work [6:19] to get a bigger house. [6:21] They quickly adapt to having more space, [6:23] but they do not fully adapt to the commute. [6:26] All right, all this happiness talk is moot [6:28] if renting is a terrible financial decision. [6:31] But renting is not a terrible financial decision. [6:34] The cost of renting is very straightforward. [6:35] It is the rent that you pay, [6:37] plus the cost of renter's insurance, [6:39] which is typically much less expensive [6:40] than homeowner's insurance, plus utilities. [6:43] The cost of owning a home is less straightforward [6:45] and leads to many people incorrectly believing [6:48] that owning is a better financial decision than renting. [6:51] The costs of an owner are property taxes, maintenance costs, [6:54] insurance costs, and the opportunity costs [6:57] of the equity in the home. [6:59] Property taxes can vary a lot depending on where you live. [7:02] For the sake of this discussion, [7:03] I will use 1% of the value of the home annually. [7:06] Property taxes, like rent, are paid in exchange for services [7:09] with no residual value. [7:11] Homes are depreciating assets. [7:13] Depreciation takes two forms. [7:15] Physical depreciation, [7:16] the normal wear and tear resulting from use, [7:18] and functional depreciation, or obsolescence, [7:21] as newer construction methods, standards and materials [7:24] make older homes less desirable. [7:26] There is no escaping these costs as an owner. [7:29] You either pay for the cost of maintenance with cash [7:31] as you consume the home over time, [7:33] or you pay for the depreciation [7:34] through a lower sale price in the future. [7:36] Either way, the cost is in there. [7:39] In "The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870 to 2015," [7:43] the authors find the maintenance costs [7:44] between 1 and 2% historically. [7:47] Their estimate includes depreciation [7:48] and all other housing-related expenses, [7:50] excluding interest, taxes and utilities. [7:53] Statistics Canada uses 1.5% of the value of the home [7:56] as a depreciation expense in the CPI basket. [7:59] This figure is in line with multiple academic studies [8:01] and the statistical agencies of other countries. [8:04] 1.5% is for the building only, [8:06] so it has to be multiplied by the ratio [8:08] of the building value over the land value [8:10] to arrive at the depreciation cost for the home. [8:13] Based on this, a 1% maintenance cost [8:15] is probably a reasonable assumption. [8:17] Home maintenance cost can sneak up on you [8:19] and they don't typically get included in the numbers [8:20] when people tell you how well they did [8:22] on their home's appreciation. [8:24] Those weekly trips to Home Depot add up. [8:26] The opportunity cost of equity [8:28] measures the cost of having money invested in a home [8:30] instead of in something else. [8:32] Something else could be a lot of different things. [8:34] I'll assume to start that the opportunity cost [8:36] is relative to owning a low-cost portfolio [8:38] of total stock market index funds [8:40] in a tax-free investment account. [8:42] In his book, "Irrational Exuberance," [8:44] Robert Shiller shows, [8:45] based on global data dating as far back as 1628, [8:48] that real home price appreciation [8:50] has been between 0.2% and 0.4% per year. [8:54] In "The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870 to 2015," [8:57] the authors estimate the real annual [8:59] historical increase of home prices in 16 countries, [9:02] from 1870 to 2015, at 1.1%. [9:06] Eh, I think we can easily round those to 1%. [9:09] In many cities in Canada, [9:10] recent history has shown much greater price appreciation, [9:14] but that doesn't tell us much about the future. [9:16] In fact, if it tells us anything [9:17] it's that we can expect lower price returns in the future [9:20] as the current ratio of prices-to-rents [9:22] is a historical anomaly. [9:24] High prices relative to rents [9:26] have historically been resolved [9:27] by falling house prices, not by rising rents. [9:31] In our recent Financial Planning Assumptions Update, [9:33] the PWL research team estimates [9:35] the expected real annual return [9:37] on a 100% stock portfolio to be 4.28%. [9:41] To account for fund ownership costs, [9:43] like fees and withholding taxes, [9:45] we can run this figure down to 4%. [9:47] A 4% expected real return on stocks [9:50] and 1% for real estate amounts to a 3% opportunity cost [9:54] for having equity in real state instead of in stocks. [9:57] Taken together, property taxes, maintenance costs [10:00] and the opportunity cost of equity [10:01] tell us the total user cost of owning a home. [10:05] Based on 1% each for property taxes and maintenance cost, [10:07] plus 3% for the opportunity cost, [10:10] we have an imputed rent of 5% of the home value. [10:13] This is what it is costing an owner to live in their home. [10:17] Another way to think about this is that you're paying rent [10:19] whether you own a home or not. [10:21] The 5% figure tells us what level of rent [10:23] relative to price equates the cost of renting and owning. [10:27] Mortgages make the economics of owning look better [10:29] by reducing the initial opportunity cost of equity. [10:32] But due to the large cash flow commitment of a mortgage, [10:35] in addition to property tax and maintenance, [10:37] the 5% user cost figure equating the cost of renting [10:40] and owning still works out. [10:42] From here, we can have all sorts of fun. [10:44] If you're looking at a $1 million home, [10:46] your user cost is estimated at $4,166 per month. [10:51] If you could rent for the same or less, [10:53] renting is financially equivalent. [10:55] A more aggressive investor, for example, [10:57] someone tilting their portfolio [10:58] towards small cap and value stocks, [11:00] would have a higher opportunity cost of equity, [11:03] and therefore, a higher rent equivalent threshold, [11:06] while a more conservative investor would be lower. [11:08] So far I have ignored taxes on investments, [11:10] assuming that the renter is using their RSP [11:12] and TFSA to invest. [11:14] Real estate price growth is not taxed in Canada [11:17] on the primary residents. [11:18] A renter investing in a taxable account [11:20] would have a lower after tax opportunity cost, [11:23] and therefore, a lower user cost equivalent rent level. [11:26] There are some other economic considerations. [11:29] Buying a home with a mortgage means forced savings. [11:32] People are much more likely to skip an RRSP contribution [11:35] than a mortgage payment. [11:36] This requires discipline on the side of the renter [11:38] to make the numbers work. [11:40] Additionally, an owned home is a hedge for housing costs. [11:43] Even in crazy markets like we're in today, [11:46] owners total costs are likely to be more stable than rents, [11:49] which landlords may want to increase. [11:52] While hedging housing costs is a good argument [11:54] for a long-term homeowner, [11:56] house prices in the short run can be volatile. [11:58] A volatile price is not such a big deal for a forever home, [12:01] but price volatility can become a substantial risk [12:04] If you need to move. [12:05] Renters have much more freedom of mobility. [12:08] They can easily move if there are unexpected issues [12:10] with their home, their neighborhood [12:12] or their employment situation without needing to worry about [12:15] short-term price fluctuations. [12:17] Sure, owners can't be rent-evicted [12:19] by a greedy landlord in a rising market, [12:21] but they're taking on a lot more price risk [12:23] in the event that they need to move in a falling market. [12:26] Owners are more often forced to commute than renters are. [12:29] The literature relating happiness to home ownership [12:31] makes it clear that homeowners [12:32] are not happier than renters just because they own a home, [12:35] even if they expected to be when they decided to buy. [12:39] Other aspects of life, like being in nature, [12:41] being good at something, [12:42] being connected to things outside yourself, [12:44] feeling in control and having strong relationships [12:47] are much better predictors of happiness than owning a home. [12:51] Guiding the housing decision based on these inputs [12:53] is a lot more sensible than rushing to own a home [12:55] on the pretense that it will make you happy. [12:57] From a financial perspective, [12:59] renters can expect to match the wealth of homeowners [13:02] as long as they understand the user cost of owning [13:05] and keep their housing costs within that range. [13:08] Owning can result in the kind of windfalls [13:10] that we've seen in Canada over the last decade, [13:12] but it can go the other way too. [13:14] Buying a home today on the expectation [13:16] of unrealistically high housing appreciation in the future [13:19] is more likely to do harm than good. [13:21] In the interest of full disclosure (chuckles), [13:23] I recently bought a house after renting [13:25] for all of my adult life. [13:26] I bought a forever home in a secluded area [13:28] within walking distance to a small town with amenities, [13:31] hiking trails, and a body of water. [13:33] I have a garage big enough to work on my hobbies [13:35] and I'm still within a 45-minute drive to my parents. [13:37] And since I'm able to work from home, [13:39] I don't have a commute. [13:40] There were no rentals available in this area, [13:43] which swung my decision in favor of buying. [13:45] When I lived in the city, [13:46] where I knew I didn't wanna stay forever, [13:48] there were more rental options available [13:50] within walking distance to my office, [13:52] which at that time, I had to commute to every day. [13:55] It was an easy decision to rent when I lived in the city. [13:57] In both cases, I made the decision [13:59] based on what worked for my lifestyle, [14:01] not some extrinsic or financial motivation [14:03] to be a property owner. [14:05] Thanks for watching. [14:06] I'm Ben Felix, Portfolio Manager at PWL Capital [14:08] and this is Common Sense Investing. [14:10] If you enjoy this video, [14:11] please share it with someone who you think [14:13] could benefit from the information. and let's be serious. [14:16] A lot of people could benefit [14:17] from this information right now. [14:19] If you want to hear more like this, [14:20] we discussed similar topics in episodes 154 and 170 [14:25] on the Rational Reminder podcast, [14:26] which is available on YouTube and on podcast platforms. [14:30] (upbeat electronic music)