What if I had bought a house in 2015 instead of renting?
Question: What if I had bought a house in 2015 instead of renting?
Direct answer
In most major Western cities, a buyer who put down a deposit in 2015 and held through 2025 would likely be meaningfully better off than a renter — house prices rose substantially in many markets and the mortgage was paid with cheaper past money — but the gap shrinks fast once you count the deposit’s opportunity cost, transaction fees, maintenance, and the markets where prices stagnated. The decision was never "buying always wins"; it hinged on your city, your rate, and how long you stayed.
Summary
This counterfactual compares two real money paths from 2015 to 2025: owning a home versus renting and investing the difference. Owners benefited from price appreciation and leverage (a small deposit controlling a large asset) plus a mortgage repaid with inflation-eroded money. Renters kept flexibility and could have invested the deposit. The outcome depends heavily on the local price trend, mortgage rate, holding period, and the renter’s discipline to actually invest the savings. This report models a representative case, brackets it across hot and flat markets, and draws out the levers that actually decided the result.
Choice Score breakdown
- Wealth-building (typical hot market) 76/100 — Leverage plus appreciation favoured owners in many cities.
- Flexibility cost 50/100 — Owning reduces mobility and ties up the deposit.
- Market dependence 45/100 — Flat or falling local markets erase the advantage.
- Confidence 64/100 — Maths is clear; the right answer varies by city.
Best for / Not best for
Best for
- Long-horizon buyers in appreciating markets with a low fixed rate
- People who value stability and plan to stay 7+ years
- Anyone wanting to see the rent-vs-buy maths laid out honestly
Not best for
- Frequent movers who would pay transaction costs twice
- Buyers in flat or falling local markets
- Disciplined investors who would reliably invest the deposit instead
Scenarios
- Hot market, stayed put (45% likely)
Bought in a city with strong appreciation, low fixed rate, held the full decade. Leverage plus price growth leaves the owner well ahead of an equivalent renter. - Flat market or early move (35% likely)
Prices stagnated, or the owner sold within a few years and paid transaction costs twice. The owning advantage shrinks or disappears versus a disciplined renter-investor. - Renter invested the difference (20% likely)
A disciplined renter invested the deposit and monthly savings in a broad index fund and kept flexibility — narrowing the gap and, in flat housing markets, coming out ahead.
Calculations
| Metric | Result | Formula |
|---|---|---|
| Home value growth (≈40% over decade) | ≈ $420,000 | price_2015 × (1 + total_growth) |
| Leverage effect on a 20% deposit | 200% gain on deposit | home_gain ÷ deposit |
| Buying & selling transaction costs | ≈ $30,000 | price × (buy_cost + sell_cost) |
| Renter invests the deposit (~10%/yr) | ≈ $155,600 | deposit × (1 + return)^years |
Pros & cons
Pros
- Leverage magnified price appreciation in hot markets
- Mortgage repaid with inflation-eroded money
- Forced saving builds equity over time
- Housing stability and control over the home
Cons
- Deposit’s opportunity cost is large if markets stagnate
- Transaction costs punish anyone who moves early
- Maintenance, insurance, and property taxes add up
- Outcome depends heavily on the local market and rate
Assumptions
- 2015 purchase price: $300,000 — Representative mid-market home; scale to your city.
- Decade appreciation: ≈40% total — Illustrative; ranged from near-zero to 80%+ across cities.
- Deposit: 20% ($60,000) — Common down-payment; smaller deposits increase leverage and risk.
- Round-trip transaction costs: ≈10% of price — Buying plus selling fees, taxes, and legal costs.
Practical next steps
- Pull your own city’s 2015–2025 price index, not a national average
- Add all buying and selling costs to the ownership side
- Add deposit + monthly-savings investment growth to the renting side
- Adjust for how many years you actually stayed
- Compare net worth under each path before generalising
Methodology
We model a representative $300k home bought with a 20% deposit, grow it at an illustrative decade appreciation, and compare against a renter who invests the deposit at a fixed return — netting out round-trip transaction costs. Scenario probabilities reflect common market and behaviour paths and sum to 100%. The Choice Score weighs leverage-driven wealth building against market dependence and flexibility cost, and is an illustration rather than a forecast.
Sources
FAQ
- Would I be richer if I had bought a house in 2015?
- In many major cities, probably yes — leverage plus appreciation favoured owners who locked a low rate and stayed put. But it is not universal: in flat markets, or if you moved within a few years, or if you would have invested the deposit diligently as a renter, the gap narrows or reverses. The answer depends on your specific city, rate, and holding period.
- Does renting always lose to buying?
- No. Renting keeps flexibility and frees the deposit to be invested. A disciplined renter-investor in a stagnant housing market can match or beat an owner. The "rent is throwing money away" slogan ignores the deposit’s opportunity cost and the large transaction costs of owning.
- What matters most in the rent-vs-buy decision?
- Four levers dominate: your local price trend, your mortgage rate, how long you will stay, and whether you would actually invest the savings as a renter. Run those four for your own situation rather than trusting any general rule.
Related decisions
Disclaimers
This is an educational counterfactual, not financial or property advice.
Housing outcomes vary enormously by location; use your own local data.
All figures are illustrative and exclude individual tax situations.