The Problem Isn't That Your Salary Is Small --It's That Your House Is Big
I have discovered the root of all financial evil and it isn't stockbrokers, the tax code or even credit cards. Instead, the real culprit is the big house.
Hyperbole? Of course, it's hyperbole. But there is a nugget of truth here. Bear with me while I explain.
More for Less: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, newly constructed single-family homes had a median size of 2,114 square feet in 2002, up from 1,520 square feet in 1982. That's a 39% increase in 20 years. Existing homes would also have grown in size, as homeowners tacked on additions, but the increase wouldn't have been as much as 39%.
How much is all this extra space costing us? At first blush, it doesn't seem to be costing much at all. The reason: Even as homes have ballooned in size, interest rates have tumbled.
To illustrate what a bonanza this fall in rates has been, consider the monthly mortgage payments on two homes, a smaller 1,520-square-foot house costing $130,544 and a larger 2,114-square-foot house valued at $188,141. (These estimated home values are based on national averages. Prices for either home would obviously be much higher in some parts of the country.) In both cases, assume you put down 20% and borrowed the other 80% through a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.
Here's where we come to the twist. Suppose you financed the smaller house at 13.42%, which was a typical mortgage rate 20 years ago, while the larger house was financed at 6.15%, which is the sort of rate available today.
Based on these assumptions, Boston real-estate investment adviser AEW Capital Management calculates that the monthly mortgage payment on the smaller house would be $1,190, while the larger house would cost just $917, or $273 less. In effect, thanks to 20 years of falling mortgage rates, today's buyers are getting more house for less money. It almost seems too good to be true.
Crowding Out: And, of course, it is too good to be true. What's the hitch? It comes down to two words: opportunity cost.
"If you put 30% or 40% of your income in your house, you can't put that money in your 401(k)," says Douglas Poutasse, AEW's chief investment strategist.
Suppose you skipped the bigger $188,141 house and instead bought the smaller $130,544 home. Once again, you borrowed 80% of the cost, but this time let's assume you financed at this year's rock-bottom mortgage rates, rather than at the rates that prevailed two decades ago.
Result: Your mortgage would be just $636 a month, or $281 less than the monthly payment on the larger house. In other words, instead of taking advantage of the fall in rates to boost your home's size, you could stick with the sort of home your parents owned and use the lower rates to slash your housing costs. That would free up a slug of money that could then be saved.
Let's say you stashed the extra $281 a month in your 401(k) plan, using the money to buy a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds that went on to earn 6% a year, while inflation ran at 2%. At that rate, you would have $156,600 after 30 years, figured in today's dollars. This ignores the taxes that would eventually have to be paid, but it also ignores any matching employer contribution on your 401(k) investments, which would greatly increase the final sum.
By contrast, if you opted for the big house, you probably wouldn't amass nearly as much money. True, you would benefit from the larger home's appreciation and that gain would likely be tax-free.
But as I have noted before in this column, homes historically have appreciated at just over one percentage point a year more than inflation. Right there, plunking for the bigger house seems like a loser.
It gets worse. If you buy the bigger house, you wouldn't just face 30 years of hefty mortgage payments. You would also incur a fistful of other costs that come with a larger place, including higher property taxes, maintenance costs and homeowner's insurance. That's additional money that could have gone into your 401(k).
Moreover, I suspect today's big homes will turn out to be a poor long-term investment. The baby boomers are growing older and their kids are leaving home. Soon enough, the boomers will be retiring and looking to move to smaller, more manageable houses. At that point, the market for McMansions probably won't be nearly so exuberant.
What about the bigger mortgage-tax deduction you get by opting for the larger house? Yes, that's appealing. But it isn't as appealing as the tax deduction on 401(k) contributions. Your 401(k) contributions are 100% tax deductible. Meanwhile, with your mortgage payments, you can deduct only that portion that goes toward interest.
All that said, owning the large house for 30 years is likely to be a lot more fun than owning a large 401(k) balance. Indeed, if you are already maxing out on your 401(k) and you can afford and want a larger house, by all means trade up to a bigger place. But if your retirement nest egg is on the skimpy side, maybe today's huge homes are a luxury you just can't afford.
问题不在薪金少 房子太大惹烦恼
我已经找到了造成一切财务困境的根源，不是股票经纪商，不是税法，甚至也不是信用卡。真正的罪魁祸首是我们住的大房子。
有点夸张么？当然，是有点夸张。但这句话的确一语道破天机。容我慢慢解释。
真实情况大致如此：根据美国人口调查局(U.S. Census Bureau)的统计，2002年单户型家庭新建成房屋的规模的中值是2,114平方英尺，远远高于1982年的1,520平方英尺。20年来的增幅达到39%。随著房主不断地增建扩建，成屋的大小也有所变化，只是增幅可能还达不到39%。
这些额外的空间到底会耗费我们多少钱？乍看之下，似乎花不了多少。原因就是：在房屋规模不断膨胀的同时，利率也已经下降了。
为了说明利率的下降带来了多大好处，让我们先考虑一下支付两座房子抵押贷款的月供：一座是小一点的房子，总面积1,520平方英尺，价值130,544美元；另一座总面积2,114平方英尺，价值188,141美元。（对房屋价值的估计是根据全美平均水平做出的，在美国某些地区，无论哪种房子价格显然都会高很多。）在上述两个例子中，都是假定房主首付房款的20%，并通过30年期固定利率抵押贷款支付了另外80%房款。
但两者有个明显的区别：假定房主为面积小一点的房子贷款的利率是13.42%，在20年前这是最常见的抵押贷款利率。而另一所大点的房子贷款的利率是6.15%，按当前的抵押贷款利率计算。
基于以上假设，位于波士顿的房地产投资咨询公司AEW Capital Management计算出：房主偿付面积小一点房子的抵押贷款的月供是1,190美元，而为大一点的房子支付的月供则是917美元，也就是说大房子的月供反而少了273美元。实际上，由于20年来抵押贷款的利率不断下跌，如今的购房者能支付更少的钱而住更大的房子了。这样的好事简直难以令人信以为真。
可是请注意：这样的好事当然不是真的。问题出在哪里？答案只有四个字：机会成本。
AEW的首席投资策略师道格拉斯-普塔斯(Douglas Poutasse)表示，如果把收入的30%到40%花在房子上，就无法把钱用在401(k)退休金账户上了。
让我们再来假设一下：你购买的不是价值188,141美元的大房子，而是价值130,544美元的小房子。这次，你仍是通过抵押贷款支付了80%房款，但假设你融资的利率是今年最低的抵押贷款利率，而不是20年前常见的贷款利率。
结果，你偿付抵押贷款的月供将是636美元，也就是说比你购买大房子每月少支付281美元。这意味著：你并没有利用利率的下跌来扩大住房的规模，而是仍住在你父辈拥有的那类房子内，然后用较低的利率来压缩你住房的成本。这样，你就能省出一笔钱用于储蓄。
假定你把每月节省下来的281美元都存进401(k)退休金账户，用这些钱购买股票和债券平衡投资的投资组合，每年的回报率为6%，通货膨胀率为2%。根据这些假设，你在30年后将拥有156,600美元，包括现在的本金。这其中忽略不计你不得不缴纳的税费，但同时也忽略了你的雇主往401(k)退休金账户中支付的相应款项，而后者可能会大大增加你最终的所得。
相反，如果你选择购买大房屋，你可能就不会积攒这么多钱。的确，你也能通过房屋的升值获益，并且这份收益很可能是免税的。
但是，正如我以前在本专栏文章中所强调的，从历史上来看，房屋每年升值的幅度才比通货膨胀率高1个百分点。果真如此的话，投资大房子看上去就是一种失败的策略。
情况还可能更糟。如果你购买的是大房子，那么你面临的不仅仅是30年高额的贷款月供。随之而来的还有其他一系列成本，包括更高的地产税、更高的房屋维护成本以及房主保险等。本来你都可以把这些钱存进401(k)退休金账户的。
另外，我怀疑如今购买大房子将会成为一项低效的长期投资。婴儿潮一代都已变老了，他们的子女都已离家单过。过不多久，婴儿潮一代都将面临退休，开始考虑搬到更小、更容易管理的房子去。到那时，大住宅市场几乎将肯定不会像今天这样繁荣了。
然而，投资大房子不是能获得更大幅度的抵押贷款减税吗？的确，那是比较诱人的，但也比不上401(k)退休金账户的减税有吸引力。因为你往401(k)退休金账户存放的钱能100%地减税，但你偿付抵押贷款的钱只能是跟利率相关的那部份才能减税。
话虽然是这样说，但通过30年抵押贷款购买一座大房子很可能比从401(k)退休金账户中得到大笔结余更令人感到愉快。确实，如果你的401(k)退休金账户已经有了足够的投资，而且你能够负担并渴望得到一所大房子的话，那么你完全可以让自己顺心遂愿。但如果你的退休金账户仍处于匮乏状态，那么今天购买大房子也许会成为将来你负担不起的奢侈之举。
