My schoolmate Anna asked the following in a comment:
What is your stance on saving for retirement vs saving for house? I’ve been reading some advice that says only save for house first (putting into high-yield savings account) and save for retirement once you have a house. Other advice says always save 10% of gross income to retirement even when you’re saving for a house.
Well, first I have to say that everyone’s priorities are different, but my husband and I are saving for both. We are both contributing 17% of our income to our 401ks and we have gotten used to that deduction so we don’t miss the money at all. We don’t totally max out our 401k but 17% is a good amount that we’re both comfortable with. We’re keeping most of what we save outside of our 401ks in a Vanguard money market fund and a Vanguard index fund and we do intend to use the money to purchase a home sometime in the future.
Personally I think that saving for a house shouldn’t be put ahead of saving for retirement. The reason is that money grows exponentially in a retirement fund with time. Generally the earlier you start contributing the larger a nest egg you would have in the end. Diverting your money from a retirement fund to purchase a home would require much larger retirement contributions in the future to achieve the same nest egg. Lets use some real numbers to see what I mean.
Scenario 1: 24 Year Old Saving for Retirement for 35 Years
Suppose that I put $1200 a month into a 401k. Since this money is contributed pre-tax, I am actually seeing a deduction of about $800 from my paycheck due to my fairly high tax rate in California. I can withdraw from my 401k at the age of 59.5 without penalty, so I can keep on contributing for at least 35 years. Assuming a fairly conservative average annual growth rate of 7% a year, my nest egg will grow to approximately $1,990,611 at age 59.5. Meanwhile I can still save whatever money I have left for a home.
Scenario 2: 24 Year Old Saving for a Home Before Saving for Retirement
Suppose that I need a downpayment of $75,000 for a below median price Californian home and I am saving what I would have put into my 401k into a money market account. I would have to save after-tax money so I could only contribute about $800 per month and lets assume that I use a money market fund that pays 4% per year after tax. At this rate, it would take me just about seven years to save for the downpayment. The $75,000 is good for a 20% downpayment on a $375,000 home. Usually there are other closing costs so actually I need more money to buy a $375,000 home. Just to make this example simple, I will say that $75,000 is adequate for me to buy a $375,000 home and the entire $75k is applied to the price of the home. Suppose that I take a regular fixed 30 year loan on the remaining balance of $300,000 and I get a fairly good rate of 6% I would now have a mortgage payment of 1798.65 per month.
This scenario means that I would lose seven years on my retirement contributions. If I contribute $1200 a month to my retirement for only 28 years I would have only 1,599,377 at age 59.5. To reach the same nest egg of scenario 1 at age 59.5, I would have to contribute about $2055 per month to my 401k for 28 years. This is not even possible without company matching because the IRS limit on 401k contributions is $15500 a year right now.
Now, some may argue that savings are going into the home that I bought. Historically, home prices have only risen 2 to 4% over long periods of time. Additionally, there is a 1.1% property tax in California on the value of my home every year even if I have paid it off. In other states the property tax can be very high and completely wipe out the gains on a home. So, suppose that I take an extremely optimistic growth rate of 4% on my home then the home is worth about $1,216,274 after 30 years. However, I am not accounting for the effects of inflation and maintenance costs so I think I would break even at best. If I put the mortgage money in an investment account instead I would have more than $2,000,000 after 30 years assuming a growth rate of 7%. In that case, I could use my $2 million and buy a better house with cash.
With all of that said, I realize that not everyone live in a place with ridiculous real estate prices and in some places of the country it still makes sense to buy a home because the house payments are less than rents. In those less crazy parts of the country it doesn’t take seven years to save a reasonable downpayment so the potential time loss on a retirement account isn’t as severe. Saving for a home first could make sense for some people. However, it really would take young people years to save an adequate downpayment here in California. In fact, there is nothing decent for $375,000 here in San Mateo and a 20% downpayment on an average home is more likely to be $120000 to $140000. My stance on the subject is to save for retirement as much as you can and as soon as possible. You can still save for a home as much as you can, but you should clearly understand that a home is a cost center, and not a savings vehicle. I still want a house of my own, but I do not expect it to feed me and pay for my health insurance when I retire. I would approach buying a home as I would approach buying any other item, such as a car or a stick of gum. I want a quality home at a reasonable price, and I don’t mind waiting a while for a sale. While I wait to buy a home, I am building up a strong retirement nest egg. I hope I answered your question Anna!
