Hereby I will prove how the realty boomers arguments are false.

What are the boomers arguments?

1.) Buy today, houses always increase in value in the long run.
WRONG. House prices cannot increase more than incomes in the long run. This is obvious if you think about it. If house prices go up more than people can afford to pay, buying stops, like it has stopped now.
Even Warren Buffett have pointed out that houses don't increase in intrinsic value. Unless there's a bubble or a crash, house prices simply reflect current salaries and interest rates. If a house is 100 years old, it's value in sheltering you is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. Then came the maintenance as the house didn't renovate itself. It also has taxes, and insurance - costs that always increase and never go away. The price of the house went up about as much as salaries went up.
To put this is simple perspective, vegetable were costing Rs.5-6/kg when 5 digit salary was a rarity.
Today, the prices have gone up by about 4 times but so have the salaries. So, sounds very much like the reasoning people use now when they talk about how much their father's house appreciated "in the long run" without considering that salaries rose a proportional amount.

2.) Renting is just wastage of money.
WRONG. As said before renting is now much cheaper per month than owning. If you don't rent, you either:

* Have a mortgage, in which case you are throwing away money on interest, tax, insurance, maintenance, costs that increase forever.
* Own outright, in which case you are throwing away the extra income you could get by converting your house to cash, investing in bonds, and renting a similar place to live for much less money. This extra income is sufficient for emergency expenses,retirement etc.

Either way, owners lose much more money every month than renters and that's assuming prices don't correct to very high level & everything is smooth in the economy.

3.) As a renter, you won't have any money left as you will spend them on vacations,cars & hence won't have equity/savings etc.
WRONG. Equity is just money. Renters are actually in a better position to build equity/savings through investing in anything but housing. Renters can get rich much faster than owners, just by investing in conservative stocks & bonds.

* Owners are losing every month by paying much more for interest than they would pay for rent. The tax deduction does not come close to making owing competitive with renting.
* Owners must pay taxes simply to own a house. That is not true of stocks, bonds, or any other asset that can build equity/savings. Only houses are such a guaranteed drain on cash.
* Owners must insure a house, but not most other investments.
* Owners must pay to repair a house, but not a stock or a bond.
* Owners lose their money as house prices reduce. The EMI's remain constant in spite of reduction in rates. At the end of loan tenure, they would have paid almost twice than that of current renters who will buy at logical rates. Keep interest rates in mind. Most of the EMI is not principal amount but interest.

4.) There are great tax advantages to owning a house.
WRONG. Many people believe you can just reduce your income tax by the amount you pay in interest, but they are wrong. Buyers may not deduct interest from income tax; they deduct interest from taxable income. And even then, the tax advantage is not significant compared to the large monthly loss from owning.

If you don't own a house but want to live in one, your choice is to rent a house or rent money to buy a house. To rent money is to take out a loan. A mortgage is a money-rental agreement. House renters take no risk at all, but money-renting owners take on the huge risk of falling house prices, as well as all the costs of repairs, insurance, property taxes, etc.

5.) RE is based on local factors, it's not a national phenomenon. RE of Delhi-NCR,Bangalore & rest of the cities has nothing to do with Pune RE.
WRONG. Lending rates remain the same throughout the country. ALL loans are harder to get. This will drive prices down everywhere.

6.) A rental house provides good income. So, you can rent if you have purchased as investment.
WRONG. Rental houses provide very poor income in hyped areas and certainly cannot cover mortgage payments. Remember there is almost 300% difference between EMIs & rent for the same house.

It's pointless to do the work of being a landlord if you can make more money with no risk, no work, and no state income tax by investing in assured good returns bond.

7.) If owning is a loss in monthly cash flow, but appreciation will make up for it.
WRONG. Appreciation is negative. Prices are going down. It only adds to the injury of already high EMI's.

8.) As soon as prices drop a little, the number of buyers on the sidelines willing to jump back in increases.
WRONG. There are very few buyers left, and those who do want to buy will be limited by increasing difficulty of borrowing now that many house owners are near bankrupt as they don't save anything at the end of the month due to high EMI's.
No one has to buy, but there will be more and more people who have no choice but to sell as their payments rise. That will keep driving prices downward for a long time.

9.) House prices never fall atleast in Pune.
WRONG. If you see the RE scenario of 1996, prices crashed by 50% & took a whole 7+ years to recover.
Exact 1996 scenario may not be there today but strong correction is inevitable across the city.

10.) House prices don't fall to zero like stock prices, so it's safer to invest in real estate.
WRONG. House prices won't be zero, but the equity or the principal amount you paid can be zero or even negative. What you will pay as EMIs later in actual terms is not for the principal amount but only the interest as house prices dip. So, you will be only serving the bank.

11.) Prices will soften gradually, won't crash immediately.
WRONG. Prices are falling off a cliff. No one knows exactly what will happen, but it looks like prices will continue to fall for long time. These are just more manipulation of buyer emotions, to get them to buy even while prices are falling.

12.) The bubble prices were driven by supply and demand alone.
WRONG. Prices were driven by low interest rates and risky loans & good returns for investors in initial phases of boom in 2004-05.
Prices went up, interest rates went up & buyers savings went down. So prices are violating the most basic assumptions about supply and demand.

13.) There is lack of land.
WRONG. Ample of land is available & continue to be even in future in Pune. Sales volume are down. Even in Japan (small country with less land), prices went down. Current prices here are the same as that of 23 years ago. If we really had a housing shortage, there would not be so many vacant rentals.

14.) If you don't own, you'll live in a cheap neighborhood later.
WRONG. For the any given monthly payment, you can rent a much better house than you can buy. Renters live better, not worse. There are downsides to renting, such as being told to move at the end of your lease, or having your rent raised, but since there are thousands of vacant rentals, you can take your pick and be quite happy renting during the crash. There are similar but worse problems for owners anyway, such as being fired and losing your house, or having your interest rate and property taxes adjust upward. Remember, property taxes are forever.

15.) There's always someone predicting a real estate crash.
TRUE, yet irrelevant. There are very real crashes every decade or so. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

16.) Local incomes justify the high prices.
WRONG. The mortgage should be more than your 3 years earning. It is much higher today. Most are already in danger/red zone.

17.) You have to live somewhere.
CORRECT. But that doesn't mean you should waste your life savings on a bad investment. You can live in a better house for much less money by renting during the down slide in RE.

18.) It's not a house, it's a home.
WRONG. Wherever one lives in it is home, be it apartment, condo, bungalow , mansion or house. Calling a house a "home" is a manipulation of your emotions for profit.

19.) If you don't buy now, you'll never get another chance.
WRONG. History proves otherwise.
Here's a beautiful quote from a analyst:-
"The real issue isn't whether you will be stuck being a renter all your life, she says. Its whether you'll get so scared about being shut out that you'll buy at the market's peak and be stuck in a property you can't afford or sell."

20.) It would take major economic recession or a major earthquake that wipes out this area in order for the price to fall by over 50%.
WRONG. Even today, if the prices fall by 50%, there will still be very few people who can buy at this levels due to uncertainty in jobs & most importantly high EMIs. Also, look at the rental rates for equivalent houses. Which loss per month is larger? EMI or rent?

contd....
Read more
Reply
12597 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    Sorry Puser, in Pune there is a builder cartel i.e. organised gang. No chance of price dropping whatsoever.
    Just like Bombay has organised crime, being an organised city, Delhi has disorganised criminals, due to general north Indian tendency of being disorganised and chaotic in everything, even in crime. In Delhi you have crimes of passion which is not there to the same extent in Bombay - in Bombay crime is also business.
    So in NOIDA, the builder gangs are small time and disorganised.
    Pune has a big time gang, well organised by your politicians.
    They will never ever drop price. If a builder drops price, he will be killed - business is business.

    I dont agree here. No builder cartel can operate and fix prices at will forever. Short-term is ok, not for ever.

    If prices keep rising in Pune forever, who will buy/open shops/offices? if there are alternatives available, who will buy here? I can assure you that I will forget buying in Pune if prices keep rising. Builders cannot keep rising the prices, with sales volume near 0 for ever.

    If politicos want to keep rising the price, then need to support it with excellent Infr, in terms of roads, water Metro trains, etc. I dont think these uneducated politicos understand this.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by RAJESHP
    I dont agree here. No builder cartel can operate and fix prices at will forever. Short team is ok, not for ever.

    If prices keep rising in Pune forever, who will buy/open shops/offices? if there are alternatives available, who will buy here? I can assure you that I will forget buying in Pune if prices keep rising. Builders cannot keep rising the prices, with sales volume near 0 for ever.

    If politicos want to keep rising the price, then need to support it with excellent Infr, in terms of roads, water Metro trains, etc. I dont think these uneducated politicos understand this.


    thats precisely why builders are struggling as their price rise is not supported by infra in parallel... DP lure is for short term...

    actually and unfortunately many times the group of common people force govt to provide infra and builders immediately create an annex to that area to increase the price there... the trend going is that builders build, uninformed buyers buy and then buyers force the govt while builders are busy creating annex...
    CommentQuote
  • Just tell me what are the expected or reasonable rates which are win-win for both buyers and builders?

    Also; there is no point in blaming politicians, builders etc etc..people still buy at these prices :(...because their decisions are not business decisions but social/family/emotional decisions (individuals ones)...
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by realacres
    Samrajya:- Got it free,
    Sun Orbit/Satellite:- Deal was done in 2003,
    Nanded City:- Land cost less than INR 80/sq ft,
    Amanora:- Same as above,
    Lavasa:- Almost free, forcefully grabbed,
    Blueridge:- Less than INR 65/sq ft,
    Megapolis:- Same as above,
    Camellia, Magnoli, Crystal garden, Kumar Shantiniketan, Ornage County; Baner-Pashan link road:- Land deals done in 2000-02,
    Crosswinds, Balewadi:- Land deal done in 2002-03,
    Gold Coast, Baner:- Land deal done in 2002-03,
    Man, the list can go on.........

    Even today,the land at Pashan-Balewadi-Baner (pancard club) is available for 800-900/sq ft, if you buy in acres, the prices drop. The land near BR is going for INR 130/sq ft, buy in acres & price falls below INR 100/sq ft!!

    Fact remains that land rates are just an excuse. Real fact is builders want 200-300% profit margins, else how does the logic of builder that land rates went up & hence ready poss are expensive than bookings by whopping 250% during boom times?


    I'm not a builder, nor am I a RE bull or a bear, but I fail to understand your logic.

    I bought Larsen when it was Rs 500, market price now close to Rs 1500. What should I do? Sell it some needy fellow who wants it at Rs 600? And I have 300% profit in less than 6 months?! :-D

    You make me feel guilty that I bought LT/Land/Apartment at a lower price. Sure, here a regulated stock market sets the price. And the RE market is unregulated and a little bit cartelized in Pune, yet there is some "market" that still determines the price.

    These land transactions in some 100+ acre projects have an outlay of over thousands of crores (even at your prices), who do you think financed them? And then they sat on it for 6 years, who paid the interest on that? Did they grow sugar on that land for 6-7 years?

    Sure, some of these 100 acre projects are flawed in their concept itself, but that's a different topic altogether.
    CommentQuote
  • is there any correlation between the two building in the same scheme where for one building builder is asking for 2500psf while for other builder asking for 3000psf by saying that he is uisng high quality material/sanitary wares/Tiles/Paints/electronics systems etc...

    Can this price difference justifies?
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by siddeewan
    is there any correlation between the two building in the same scheme where for one building builder is asking for 2500psf while for other builder asking for 3000psf by saying that he is uisng high quality material/sanitary wares/Tiles/Paints/electronics systems etc...

    Can this price difference justifies?

    Its you , who as a buyer, has to take the call.
    Why you post something like ... "that shop in that xyz mall is selling a Levis jeans for 1500 Rs. Is that justified ?"
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by razer
    I bought Larsen when it was Rs 500, market price now close to Rs 1500. What should I do? Sell it some needy fellow who wants it at Rs 600? And I have 300% profit in less than 6 months?! :-D


    Congrats Buddy. Enjoy the profit before it evaporates. But one cannot compare Shares to RE for the simple reason that housing is a necessity while buying shares is not. A person needs Food (Most important), clothing (for protection and …. ;-)) and housing (again for protection from evil forces and weather gods) for his existence on this earth. Buying and selling shares is not related to existence on earth.


    Originally Posted by razer

    These land transactions in some 100+ acre projects have an outlay of over thousands of crores (even at your prices), who do you think financed them? And then they sat on it for 6 years, who paid the interest on that? Did they grow sugar on that land for 6-7 years?
    Sure, some of these 100 acre projects are flawed in their concept itself, but that's a different topic altogether.


    This is known as Land hoarding.. buy land do not build and don’t let anyone else build. Is it the buyers mistake that a builder wanted to hoard a land and not build on it for 6-7 years.
    Hoarding on FoodGrains to increase prices is regarded a Black marketing. I think this is beaus Food is daily necessity. But hoarding on Land ec. Is not regarded as this ad I think this is because the effect of this cannot be seen immediately in the lives of people.

    VK
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by veeemkay


    Congrats Buddy. Enjoy the profit before it evaporates. But one cannot compare Shares to RE for the simple reason that housing is a necessity while buying shares is not. A person needs Food (Most important), clothing (for protection and …. ;-)) and housing (again for protection from evil forces and weather gods) for his existence on this earth. Buying and selling shares is not related to existence on earth.

    This is known as Land hoarding.. buy land do not build and don’t let anyone else build. Is it the buyers mistake that a builder wanted to hoard a land and not build on it for 6-7 years.
    Hoarding on FoodGrains to increase prices is regarded a Black marketing. I think this is beaus Food is daily necessity. But hoarding on Land ec. Is not regarded as this ad I think this is because the effect of this cannot be seen immediately in the lives of people.

    VK


    I agree with you. But all I'm saying is price discovery is the end-point, and you cannot peel back the layers and say that since you got it for 123, you can't sell for 456.

    As compuwalah said, if you find an article wrongly priced in a mall, then just don't buy it. Sure, go ahead moan and groan about it, but don't go crying about how the material was procured in Rs 5, and it costs only Rs 100 to stitch. Then why sell for Rs 1500?

    To take this analogy further, I must say that builders are giving "torn" jeans, or half-size jeans saying it will grow as you become thinner, calling it fashionable.

    Pricing is not my biggest beef against builders. Non-performance certainly is. How can you take "mooh maangi rakkam", and still not deliver?
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by razer
    I'm not a builder, nor am I a RE bull or a bear, but I fail to understand your logic.

    I bought Larsen when it was Rs 500, market price now close to Rs 1500. What should I do? Sell it some needy fellow who wants it at Rs 600? And I have 300% profit in less than 6 months?! :-D

    You make me feel guilty that I bought LT/Land/Apartment at a lower price. Sure, here a regulated stock market sets the price. And the RE market is unregulated and a little bit cartelized in Pune, yet there is some "market" that still determines the price.

    These land transactions in some 100+ acre projects have an outlay of over thousands of crores (even at your prices), who do you think financed them? And then they sat on it for 6 years, who paid the interest on that? Did they grow sugar on that land for 6-7 years?

    Sure, some of these 100 acre projects are flawed in their concept itself, but that's a different topic altogether.


    The question you need to ask yourself is, how much is your L&T stock really worth? Similarly, the question to ask in RE is.. how much is it really worth?

    One way of arriving at an answer is to find out the manufacturing and development cost, add a fair profit margin to it, and use these numbers to determine if the price at which you are buying is reasonable or bizarre (either way).

    You may say "pure supply and demand" but tell me, do you buy stocks based purely on how much demand it has, or do you also bother looking at even basic things like P/E ratio, valuation, and performance of the company? I'm talking about basic financial principles here, not some esoteric fundas that hedge fund managers deal with.

    Why is it that when it comes to RE, these basic principles fly out of the window, and we only start doing a "jap" of "supply and demand", or "india shining", or "IT boom", or some such jargon fed to us by the media.

    I'm not saying I'm an expert (far from it), and I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that considering how crooked this industry is, we need to keep our feet firmly on the ground by constantly reminding ourselves of the fundamentals.

    Another thing: supply and demand is not some magic formula that explains everything. It only works in a very long term horizon, and in the short term (even years), it can easily be manipulated by monopolies, cartels, regulation, etc.

    If Tata Nano gets overbooked by say 2 lakh advance bookings, why don't they raise prices from 1 lakh to 2 lakhs? After all, supply and demand dictates that they should increase prices, right? Why doesn't Walmart increase prices because it gets so many customers?

    Sometimes (or many times), there is demand precisely because the cost is low and affordable. Remove cheap housing loans and then tell me, how many of the apartments will get sold in Pune today? Put it another way, the availability of loans is causing a huge amount of extra money to become available in people's hands today, which is allowing them to make purchasing decisions today that they would have done 10 years from now.

    The demand you are looking at today, is in reality, the sum total demand for housing from 2010 to 2030 (given the same population, of course).

    The frightening thing is of course, the fact that if even a fraction of these heavily mortgaged people start defaulting on their loan payments, the financial industry would start panicking, and the consumer will start clamping down on other lifestyle expenditure. Say goodbye to our internal aconomy growth then.

    We are living on a borrowed future.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by asliarun


    If Tata Nano gets overbooked by say 2 lakh advance bookings, why don't they raise prices from 1 lakh to 2 lakhs? After all, supply and demand dictates that they should increase prices, right? Why doesn't Walmart increase prices because it gets so many customers?



    Good points all. In reality Tata Nano's grey market price actually does rise. Those who want it, but don't want to wait do end up paying a premium in the secondary market. And very often, it's the showroom guy who ends up making more money because he knows he has a hot cake in his hand that he can really suck and milk. And who knows even the manufacturer gets a small premium kick-back from the showroom.

    The best way to regularize this is to actually have VIP bookings. So those who want the vehicle tomorrow, can choose to pay 2Lakhs, and they'll get it the next day. In this case, the manufacturer actually gets the benefit of producing a hot cake. But wouldn't some call this as "commercial exploitation".
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by razer
    I agree with you. But all I'm saying is price discovery is the end-point, and you cannot peel back the layers and say that since you got it for 123, you can't sell for 456.

    As compuwalah said, if you find an article wrongly priced in a mall, then just don't buy it. Sure, go ahead moan and groan about it, but don't go crying about how the material was procured in Rs 5, and it costs only Rs 100 to stitch. Then why sell for Rs 1500?

    To take this analogy further, I must say that builders are giving "torn" jeans, or half-size jeans saying it will grow as you become thinner, calling it fashionable.

    Pricing is not my biggest beef against builders. Non-performance certainly is. How can you take "mooh maangi rakkam", and still not deliver?


      Justifying the high price doing Land hoarding is wrong.
      Let me try and use your own analogy and try to explain in your mall all jeans are above 1200. The ones that are below that are quoted as life time opportunity and not jeans at all but are sold as jeans (torn short etc. that u mentioned). In your case we are assuming that only Jeans can be worn and nothing else.. so potentially u are going NUDE if you don’t buy the jeans (This is the point where I state that housing is a necessity so we have to assume that jeans is also a necessity).
      You can hire the Jeans but at the same time the owner can ask you to give it back anytime.
      On top of this, The stores create FEAR by constantly increasing the price of Jeans for apparently no reason. (“apparently no reason” is important point here).
      What else they claim only 3 Jeans left and so now the Jeans are going to cost 2500. So remaining people pls go nude. Advance booking for next lot of Jeans will cost 2700. which subsequently will be increase to 3000 as soon as Jeans come in our godown. And as soon as they hit rack they will cost 3300. (Reason could be anything like cost of preparing Jeans has increased, Tremendous amount of loan taken so have to repay that etc.)

      What will you ay if pharmaceutical companies increase the prices of all life saving drugs to huge levels irrespective of cost of manufacturing. They too can Claim ohh I have taken huge loan for buying my 7 series BMW have to pay that off. Huge demand for my medicine.. if you don’t want it don’t take it simple. Government controls the prices of such essential drugs here. Cause it is important.
      Government also makes sure that hoarding food grains is not done by Baniyas.

      You might say the cases are different. But I would say one is immediate need and the other is maybe not so immediate need.

      I think I am blabbering a lot. Let me jut stop at let us the Major point is housing is a necessity.

      VK
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by veeemkay

    Let me jut stop at let us the Major point is housing is a necessity.
    VK


    Dude, no one is asking anyone to go "nude". (hey it rhymes! :D)

    Housing is necessity to buy? I don't think so.

    In our country we have this "funda" that we must have our own home. To have a roof over your head is a necessity, but to have your own roof over your head is not a life-and-death situation.

    I live in a country where close to 70% (if not more) of the population rents. Everyone here is incessantly crying about rents, instead of home prices :D. I live in a rental apartment, too. It's not my home, but I treat it like my own. The rent is high, I know, but I simply cannot afford to buy in this country.

    So all those who are creating FUD is for those who want to buy. For those who feel that the prices are unjustified, they can continue to rent (for a lot less I might add in India), and keep a stable roof over their head.

    In fact, by renting in India you can actually lead a lifestyle that you would've otherwise not been able to.
    CommentQuote
  • Builder theory proved wrong. RE bull theory proved wrong. Bear theory is right. Please stay on rent :D .

    Actually I also stay in country where house prices were beyond my reach. So I stayed on rent for 11 long years before I finally bought. All these years I have been staying on rent as some people had spare money to buy 3 or 4 properties which they rented out. So it was a win win situ for both landlord and me. Had there been no such people who were bullish, there would not have been apt to rent (though the market price of some of these apartment was much below the price at which the owner bought) and it would have been a headache to govt as how to house the people who come to work in country (yeah there are govt who are concerned about such issues as well. Not "fend for yourself" attitude :-) ).

    Similar situation exists now in India (as the equation of 200 times rent is worth of a property is out of window fot at least for past 3 years). People who think its worth buying properties and have sufficient money, buy at present rate (which seems to be happening) as they believe in the northbound travel of rates in long run. People for whom rental equation wins in the the EMI vs rent math , stay on rent (and lookout for a big slump which many oracles are predicting to buy). This way people who booked at higher rates can cover some of their EMI. So works win win for both parties.

    Like Good Bad Ugly dialogue (by Tucho)
    "If you want to buy... buy ... don't complain" (If you want to shoot ... shoot ... don't talk).
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by razer


    Housing is necessity to buy? I don't think so.

    In our country we have this "funda" that we must have our own home. To have a roof over your head is a necessity, but to have your own roof over your head is not a life-and-death situation.

    I live in a country where close to 70% (if not more) of the population rents. Everyone here is incessantly crying about rents, instead of home prices . I live in a rental apartment, too. It's not my home, but I treat it like my own. The rent is high, I know, but I simply cannot afford to buy in this country.

    So all those who are creating FUD is for those who want to buy. For those who feel that the prices are unjustified, they can continue to rent (for a lot less I might add in India), and keep a stable roof over their head.

    In fact, by renting in India you can actually lead a lifestyle that you would've otherwise not been able to.


    Rent jeans or buy Jeans. If one cannot buy then one has no option but to rent.

    I think you have mentioned the answer urself. 70% (if no more) of people in India have to rent. Then there is something very wrong in way RE is priced. Don’t you think so? Demand/ Supply????

    Is there any other alternative to housing? Apart from renting.
    Can we live on the road without a house (unfortunately a lot of Indians do)? Hence housing is a necessity. (Rental or Owned) And if it is a necessity then one has to think about the prices.

    BTW Are you renting by choice. I don’t think so.

    Originally Posted by compuwalah
    Builder theory proved wrong. RE bull theory proved wrong. Bear theory is right. Please stay on rent :D .


    He he he LOL.. Most of us dont have a choice. ;)

    VK
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by veeemkay
    Rent jeans or buy Jeans. If one cannot buy then one has no option but to rent.

    I think you have mentioned the answer urself. 70% (if no more) of people in India have to rent. Then there is something very wrong in way RE is priced. Don’t you think so? Demand/ Supply????

    Is there any other alternative to housing? Apart from renting.
    Can we live on the road without a house (unfortunately a lot of Indians do)? Hence housing is a necessity. (Rental or Owned) And if it is a necessity then one has to think about the prices.

    BTW Are you renting by choice. I don’t think so.

    VK


    I don't rent in India, I travel to another country for work, where I have a rented apartment. And yes in this foriegn country I'm renting by choice. Even if I could afford the apartment in this foreign country, I wouldn't buy.

    Am not sure about India's rent-buy ratio, I would assume most people in smaller cities live in their own homes? Only in the bigger cities, the stats would be slightly tilted toward tenants. Experts can chime in, I haven't a clue about this.
    CommentQuote