When it comes to buying a house, the conventional wisdom is that you should buy the most expensive house you can afford. The thinking is that you buy a house that will provide you with extra growing room, and that your income and financial resources will grow into the house as time goes on.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that that kind of thinking probably contributed substantially to the housing meltdown in the last few years. Fundamentally, too many people were living in houses they could barely afford. They ignored the question, “how much house can I afford“. But even aside from the meltdown, there are solid financial reasons why you should actually want to buy the least expensive house you feel comfortable in.
Keeping your basic living expenses low
Financial problems often start with high basic living expenses. The most basic of these is your monthly house payment. If the house payment is high, other expenses seem to follow suit. There are higher utility costs, higher repairs and maintenance, and more money spent on both cars and furniture to decorate the house. If you fall into this pattern, you take greater risk that you’ll lose your home. No bueno.
The most basic component of a successful financial plan is living beneath your means, that way you’ll have money left over for spending and investing over and above your basic living expenses. If your house payment is on the high side, it will be almost impossible to lower these expenses unless you plan on selling your home to downsize later. It’s better to do that up front when you buy your first (or next) home than to be forced into it at a later date.
More flexibility in a financial crisis
One of the best reasons to keep your basic living expenses low is that you have plenty of room to maneuver in the event you are beset by a financial crisis. The crisis could be anything from a loss of a job, to the failure of a business, to a rash of large medical expenses. By having low basic living expenses – including your housing expense – you’ll be in a better position to deal with any financial crisis that might come about.
One of the reasons so many people have lost their homes in foreclosure is because they were tightly stretched on their house payment to begin with. Once other financial problems affected their lives, there was simply no room to make house payments anymore. You can avoid that situation by buying a house that’s beneath your means.
More money for savings and investing
A house is one component of successful financial planning but it’s far from the whole story. Perhaps even more basic is having money for savings and investing. The key to financial success is growing your wealth over time. It’s far easier to achieve when you have more income available for savings and investing because it isn’t tied up in basic living expenses like housing.
Tip – If you are interested in automating your savings for a home purchase or other purpose, why not consider Betterment? They make it easy to reach your goals by putting your investing on cruise control. They also have a neat site that shows you how much you need to save in order to reach your goal.
Having more money for savings and investments not only improves your long-term financial situation, but it also provides liquidity in the short run. This is exactly what will be needed in the event of a financial disaster. The extra liquidity that you will have from increased savings can save you from having to make hard choices relating to your lifestyle, including the house you live in. More money usually means more options, and that’s a goal worth pursuing by itself.
Faster, easier payoff of your mortgage
There’s actually a twin advantage here. The less expensive home will mean a smaller mortgage. And that means it will be far easier to pay off your mortgage much faster. Lower house payments will mean that you’ll have more money to make extra principal payments to accelerate the payoff the loan. This is not something you’ll be able to accomplish if you’re having to stretch every month in order to make the basic house payment.
The second advantage is that if less money is going into the house payment and more of it is going into savings and investments, you’ll more quickly reach the point where you have a bankroll large enough to payoff your mortgage completely at a future date.
You’ll also have the benefit of having a choice as to how you will handle your mortgage payoff. A low monthly payment certainly opens up the possibility of additional principal payments. And a growing savings balance will enable you to either payoff your mortgage in large chunks, or to pay it off completely at the date of your choosing. You can also do any combination of the above. The point is the choices will be yours, and they will come about because your house payment is relatively low in relation to your income.
What’s your thinking on this? Do you think it’s best to adhere to the old advice of buying the most expensive house you can afford? Or do you think we’ve entered into a time when we need to be thinking differently about this, in buying the least expensive house possible?
JP says
Good advice. My only caveat to this is definitely buy in a neighborhood that is established. My experience in buying in an ‘up and coming’ area is that the area might not appreciate as much as you hope whereas established desirable neighborhoods tend to stay that way if the houses are of decent quality. Also, after having dropped 50k in an old house to never be seen again, I am now of the opinion of buying houses that have already mostly been updated/improved is the way to go. Unless you stay in a places for 20+ years you won’t ever get back that 50K worth of remodeling.
Neal Frankle, CFP ® says
Agreed. Good advice JP. Thanks, Neal
jim says
I agree with your sentiments – so long as you’re not buying in a bad neighborhood. We bought a great “starter” house years ago and loved it until the gang bangers started invading. Had to “move up” to keep our children safe and in a good school district. Still consider it a great investment.
Neal Frankle says
Jim. First, great that it worked out. Second, glad you could move up for better schools.
Rick B. says
Back in 1986 my wife and I bought a 3 bedroom home in a good area of town that we could afford at that time. We only had one child so that was really all the house we needed. We are still in this home, which was paid off in 21 years and I retired almost two years ago at age 55. I think the realtors are the ones who had been saying you need to buy the biggest you can afford so they got a bigger commission.
Neal Frankle says
Outstanding! Actually, you bring up a great point. Maybe buying a home for less than you can afford is a key success ingredient in successful retirement. Certainly in your case it has helped. Not many people can retire at 55. Congrats! You get the Pilgrim Gold Star Award!!!!
Financial Planning Guy says
I had a family friend that insisted that his kids never take a mortgage that they couldn’t pay off in 5 years. While it seemed like an extreme measure to me at the time. I look at the habits that were instilled in his kids and see where they are 20 years later. Having that kind of discipline has paid for itself in spades.
Neal Frankle says
I also love the sentiment. 5 Years is a bit aggressive but it’s great thinking.
Pretired Nick says
I’m so glad you’re challenging some of the conventional wisdom here. People have been sold a lot of bunk about buying high-end homes and many have been doomed to poverty even as they show off fabulously decorated foyers.
That said, you can go too far to the small/low-quality side as well. Even though the total invested funds may be less, your ability to unload the property if you really need to will be very limited. Stay away from poor building quality, busy streets, bad neighborhoods, etc. so you can get your money out if you ever need to do so.
Neal Frankle says
Great points. I believe you can buy “less” house but that should not mean buying a cheap one. Thanks for bringing up that point Nick.