When Andy Donaldson was house hunting in London in 2013, he was amused by how many low-quality real estate photos he came across during his search.

"I shared a few [photos] with friends, accompanied with some sarcastic commentary of my own, and it took off," Donaldson told Business Insider. From there, he was inspired to start the Tumblr "Terrible Real Estate Agent Photos," which quickly grew a following.

"Within a few weeks the blog was getting around 1 million visits per week, [and followers] send me so many horrendous examples of their own I can hardly keep up," he said. 

Below, we've rounded up 20 of our favorite photos from Donaldson's site. While some are low-lit and unflattering, others are just creepy. Consider them examples of what not to do when you're trying to sell your home — a picture is worth a thousand words, after all. 

SEE ALSO: 5 easy ways to make your home look more expensive, according to 2 top real estate brokers in New York City

Some homeowners don't even clean their pool before listing their home for sale.

RAW Embed

Others are worse. Anyone need a mattress?

RAW Embed

Some don't even care to hide their collectibles, such as their dolls ...

RAW Embed

In February, I bought a starter home.

So when I came across a blog post on A Wealth of Common Sense by Ben Carlson of Ritholtz Wealth Management calling buying a starter home "one of the worst moves you can make financially as a younger person," I gulped.

And then I had to know more.

Carlson further explained his take on the phone. A starter home, he says, is any home you don't plan on staying in for the long term.

Carlson, who's a married homeowner in his mid-30s, as well as a CFA Charterholder, watched many of his friends follow the traditional path: get married, buy a home for the time being, have kids, upgrade to a bigger, more permanent home. However, he saw that these starter homes were more expensive than the buyers planned, from making improvements up-front to extricating themselves from the property later.

When he ran the numbers, he realized that, generally, starter homes just don't make sense. For one thing, the bulk of your mortgage payments in those first years go directly to interest payments, meaning you haven't built much equity by the time you trade up.

"The median house price is roughly $200,000," he told me, "and for the sake of argument, let's say you don't put anything down. If you stayed there for five years with a 4% interest rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage, two-thirds of your payments go to interest costs alone. You don't build up a ton of equity."

He said that the break-even point for a home tends to be between five and seven years, depending on where you live. If you're in the house for less than that time, you sink money into closing costs, property taxes, improvements, and even realtor fees when it's time to sell.

"If you're going to buy a house, buy something you're going to stay in for seven to 10 years," he said. "Otherwise, those costs are going to eat up most of your equity."

"But," I pleaded with him, "I live in the New York metro area. Aren't there exceptions to this rule?"

Turns out there are, and I'm not the only one who was dying to hear him say it. After that blog post went up, readers from major cities like New York, San Francisco, and Philadelphia reached out to say they'd done the math and, in fact, buying a starter home made more financial sense than continuing to rent.

"I think the break-even point is a little shorter," Carlson said. "I think there are always caveats, always. And I have had people say they're going to hold onto the starter home and rent it out when they leave. There's a lot of nuance to it — there's always personal situations that intervene. Real estate is probably much different in New York City than it is in the rural Midwest, so I think there has to be some give and take there with the local market."

Carlson isn't against buying a home overall. In fact, he's strongly in favor of it — if it's somewhere you intend to stay for at least a decade. Until then, though, don't look down on renting.

"I think for young people, renting is underrated," he said. "When you're young, renting gives you more options. People say they don't want to pay someone else's mortgage, but I think especially when you're young and not tied down, it gives you the ability to pick up and move to another city for a job — a little leeway. A house is much more expensive than people think. It's more than just a mortgage."

SEE ALSO: A Wharton professor explains why you shouldn't consider buying a home an investment

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A financial expert reveals the biggest money mistake a couple can make

What time of year is most advantageous for sellers to put their home on the market?

Redfin analyzed more than 7 million home sales over the past four years and divided the data into seasons, according to when the homes were first listed. We evaluated which season was best for listing a home according to two of the most common goals for sellers: Selling for more than the list price and going under contract within 30 days.

As conventional wisdom would predict, spring was the best time to list a home, but just barely. Spring offered the highest likelihood of selling above list price and of selling within 30 days, but winter, the supposed slow season for real estate, was a close second.

Among spring listings, 18.7 percent of homes fetched above asking, with winter listings not far behind at 17.5 percent. While 48.0 percent of homes listed in spring sold within 30 days, 46.2 percent of homes in winter did the same.

While winter can get a bad rap, it’s not a bad time to list a home. “You may have fewer people looking to buy, but those who are looking are serious,” said Michelle Leader, a Redfin real estate agent in Oklahoma City. “Buyers that time of year often need to move, so they’re much less likely to make a lowball offer and they’ll often want to close quickly — two things that can make the sale much smoother.”  

The other benefit of listing in the winter is less competition from other sellers. While spring can see a rush of homes coming on the market, homes that list in the winter are much more likely to stand out, said Leader.

Among homes listed in summer and fall, the key goals of selling quickly and for above list price were achieved notably less often. Forty-one percent of autumn listings sold in 30 days or less, and just 14.7 percent sold above list price.

“Autumn is a tricky time,” said Chicago Redfin real estate agent Michael Linden. “Buyers with kids often want to get settled in their new home before the school year starts, so they’ve already closed in spring or summer. And right after you list, the holiday season begins, which can delay the time it takes to close, and causes many buyers to pause their search. The last quarter of the year is just not an ideal time to put a home on the market, particularly if you want full price or a quick closing.”

But, as the numbers indicate, listing at the start of the new year can work to a seller’s advantage. Typically, sellers assume snow and inclement weather in January and February are major barriers to winter home shopping. However, while winter storms can cause a delay or two, most cities known for snow also have effective plowing systems and residents who are comfortable tromping around in winter boots.

In fact, weather seems to have little to do with the seasonality. When broken down by metro, winter and spring maintained their top spots consistently, even across markets with weather as varied as Los Angeles, Boston and Atlanta.

Methodology

Redfin examined more than 7 million homes listed across 23 metro areas from 2012 through August 2016 to see how many of them went under contract within 30 days and how often they sold for more than their list price. We then grouped the performance of each listing by the season that the home was first listed on the market. We used the astronomical seasons (Winter: Dec. 21 – Mar. 20; Spring: Mar. 21 – June 20; Summer: June 21 – Sept 21; Autumn: Sept 21 – Dec. 20).

SEE ALSO: 10% of the homes being flipped in Vancouver have never been lived in before

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This hidden iPhone feature will boost your reception

What Donald Trump’s famous $1 trillion infrastructure build-out will look like—and whether Congress will let any of it happen—is currently a matter of great speculation. Key among the questions waiting to be answered is a very basic one: What is Trump talking about when he talks about “infrastructure”? Is it the state highways and municipal water pipes you’re imagining? Or could it also be the kind that’s attached to the kind of projects a golf course developer/casino magnate would know best: real estate?

Trump has said some traditionally infrastructure-y words when he talks about this. “We’re talking about a very large-scale infrastructure bill,” the president-elect said in a long-ranging interview with the New York Times published Wednesday. “… [a]nd we’re going to make sure it is spent on infrastructure and roads and highways.” A proposal to privatize infrastructure projects released by Trump’s economic advisors describes the “complex network of airports, bridges, highways, ports, tunnels, and waterways” that underpins private sector growth. 

But neither that paper, nor Trump, has clearly specified what kinds of projects would be applicable under that privatization scheme, which would incentivize private companies to bankroll, construct, and own infrastructure assets by handing them tax credits worth 82 percent of their original down payments. All told, the advisors (who did not return request for comment; nor did Trump’s transition team) claim the plan would stimulate $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, with $0 billed to taxpayers—because the original federal tax credits would be eventually offset by tax revenue from associated wages and business profits. 

The projects that would likely get built under such a scheme would not necessarily be the ones that best serve the public interest. Water pipe reconstruction in Flint, for example, could be unlikely to get private investors excited, since such a project might not prove lucrative over time. On the other hand, projects that would generate returns—say, a toll road in a very congested area—could lure investors. But even then, it’s very hard to imagine that enough attractive highway projects exist to add up to $1 trillion in infrastructure investment—or enough tax revenue from profits and wages for the feds to break even. 

Unless! Unless the projects Trump’s team is talking about are not necessarily about “rebuilding” “infrastructure” in the regular sense—but rather, major new property developments. Could an industrial park primed to have a major, even transformative, economic impact on a region be considered infrastructure? Perhaps. And Donald Trump sure knows about developing apartments. Could new housing be considered infrastructure? What about all the sewers and utilities required to support new residential development? Think of the construction booms happening on, say, Roosevelt Island in New York City or Hunters Point in San Francisco. Developers often pay out of pocket through impact fees for water, power, and roads that accompany those kinds of lucrative developments. But perhaps under a Trumpian infrastructure scheme they’d be eligible for a whopping 82 percent tax credit. 

This would be wrong, on several levels. First, even without an expansive definition of “infrastructure,” there is little reason to believe that Trump’s scheme would actually generate new investment. Paul Krugman pointed out in the New York Times that it could wind up privatizing projects that would have been built anyways with regular federal support—in other words, removing assets from the public’s control, and for giveaway prices. If Trumpified infrastructure includes certain types of profitable real estate projects, then the federal government would be subsidizing ventures that private companies would want in on anyways. The government would be controlling the market, and effectively lining the pockets of those private stakeholders—while footing the public with the bill. Krugman offers an example of how this would work:

[I]magine a private consortium building a toll road for $1 billion. Under the Trump plan, the consortium might borrow $800 million while putting up $200 million in equity—but it would get a tax credit of 82 percent of that sum, so that its actual outlays would only be $36 million. And any future revenue from tolls would go to the people who put up that $36 million.

Or let’s say this technique is used for a profitable new logistics center. Taxpayers would be paying for a project that the private market would have built even without the incentive. The companies that construct and run the center get big checks. This is the definition of corporate welfare. And it could breed corruption on a very grand scale.

Prominent members of Congress, including Democrats, have said that they would work with the president-elect on his infrastructure bill (several have now dialed back a bit). First they should pin down exactly what he means by infrastructure, because there is no legal definition. The infrastructure in Donald Trump’s mind might not be the infrastructure in yours or mine. As previous inquiries into the president-elect’s mental state suggest, it’s probably not the only thing he sees differently.

SEE ALSO: Trump campaign unveils plan to spend $1 trillion on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure with no tax hikes

DON'T MISS: Bernie Sanders roils Trump's infrastructure blueprint: 'The plan he offered is a scam'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This hidden iPhone feature will boost your reception

By Katie Hawkins, as told to Natalie Wise

A lot of people think I’m crazy for buying a house by myself in the city. It comes up a lot in conversation. People think buying a house is something you do as a couple once you get married. But I don’t want to pay rent my whole life. I’d rather make the most of my money.

Still, every time I looked at the numbers for buying a house, they were big. But every time I paid my rent, all I could think about was how that money could be going toward a house. Real estate in Atlanta is expensive, but so is rent.

I didn’t think I had the purchasing power for a traditional loan until a friend told me about a different kind of loan that required living in a non-gentrified neighborhood for five years to qualify for no down payment. I took this as a sign and decided to talk to a real estate agent.

The real estate agent found me an even better loan, where I didn’t have to commit to staying for five years. As soon as I realized I really might be able to buy a house, I cut back on everything, spending as little as possible and saving as much as I could. You don’t even want to know how little my food budget was or how much ramen I ate.

Originally I wanted a fixer-upper, thinking I could have roommates to cover the cost of renovating. But after offers I put in on two homes fell through, I found a small condo.

The purchasing process itself wasn’t easy. I had a lot of trouble closing the deal, but we made it happen. I was 28 when I bought the condo.

Lessons learned

My best advice to anyone looking to buy a home is to find a good real estate agent. I felt very alone throughout much of the home-buying process. Most of my friends had their husbands to lean on emotionally, but I was on my own. My agent made things easier for me. The best tip he gave me was to drive by houses I was interested in at night to make sure the neighborhood felt safe to me.

Negotiating the price took a month and a half. I had already moved out of my apartment, so I was couch-surfing with friends. When I felt I had overstayed my welcome, I slept a few nights in my car.

That was the breaking point. When my real estate agent heard that, he told the clients, and they signed the next day. I had to pay closing costs, though, which took every bit I had saved at the beginning.

Home sweet home

My condo is located in Grant Park, a fun neighborhood in Atlanta. Location is one of the main reasons I put in an offer on the place. I love the neighborly feel of having a park outside my door and a popular coffee shop less than a minute walk away, and being able to bike to work on the Beltline.

The condo is small, with only 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. But it feels cozy, and I’m making it more and more like home each day. My favorite feature of the condo is actually the hall coat closet, which are surprisingly uncommon in apartments and condos. It’s more of a home feature. I also love my walk-in closet.

I was lucky that the bathroom had just been renovated before I moved in. I’ll probably want to upgrade the kitchen appliances soon, and will probably need a new hot water heater in the next couple of years, too.

I’m glad I didn’t get a fixer-upper now. I can barely keep up with cleaning the 700 square feet I have now. Not to mention I’m still learning how to use power tools.

I am super grateful for this condo, and I love it. The comments about buying a house alone don’t bother me as much anymore. I love the freedom I have.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Blinds that open and close themselves will help make your house a smart house

John Paul DeJoria, the billionaire entrepreneur known for building John Paul Mitchell Systems and Patrón Spirits, has sold his Austin area home for $6.93 million, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The 96-acre property, which includes a four-bedroom home and ample land where some 120 "exotic animals" roam, was originally listed for $7.995 million in 2015 before reducing its price to $7.495 million a year later. 

In addition to his collection of gazelles, oryx, and antelopes, DeJoria added a fully stocked underground bomb shelter to his home. 

"I suppose if Armageddon comes I'll be prepared," the home's buyer, TV producer Jonathan Nowzaradan, said to the WSJ.

DeJoria's net worth is estimated to be as much as $3 billion.

SEE ALSO: 20 hilarious listing photos that show what not to do when putting your house on the market

The main house has about 7,500 square feet of space, and it's situated on an enormous lot in Dripping Springs, an Austin suburb.

The property includes parts of Fitzhugh Creek.

A large gate and Texas state flag marks the entrance.

Donald Trump’s biggest office tenant at his namesake Fifth Avenue tower could become one of his biggest headaches.

The state-owned Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, the world’s biggest lender measured by assets, occupies 20,404 square feet of office space at Trump Tower. The bank’s lease is set to expire in 2019, and renewal negotiations could run Trump afoul of a little-known piece of the U.S. Constitution meant to avoid conflicts of interest.

The “emoluments” clause prevents U.S. officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments. In the case of the ICBC lease, any terms deemed to be favorable to the bank could get Trump in hot water.

“It could be a problem if they pay anything more than the market rate or the market rate has changed somehow by the fact that he’s president,” said Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who served as the chief ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush. “Any concessions to him by the bank could be viewed as a gift, as a monetary value.”

The bank was paying $95.48 per square foot for its Trump Tower space as of September 2012, the latest lease data available, Bloomberg reported.

Trump was highly critical of the Chinese government on the campaign trail, while at the same time highlighting his business deals with the country. Ethics experts have been critical of his plan to hand over his company to his children, arguing Trump should sell his interests in his properties and put the resulting funds into a blind trust.

In an extreme scenario, Congress could impeach Trump for violating the Constitution, though the emoluments clause has never been litigated. What’s more likely to happen is that his administration would be tied up with information requests or litigation over his business deals with foreign countries.

There is some disagreement, however, on whether the emoluments clause would apply in situations such as the ICBC lease.

“If we start to see foreign governments providing gifts directly to the President, that would be problematic,” said Robert Kelner, head of the election and political law practice at the law firm Covington & Burling. “But ordinary course-of-business dealings between a state-owned enterprise and a bona fide corporation owned by the President won’t come anywhere close to violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

“The founders would have been surprised to learn that George Washington couldn’t sell his crops to a foreign chartered trading company,” he added. [Bloomberg]

SEE ALSO: A growing number of economists are beginning to reevaluate Donald Trump's protectionist stance on trade

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why some people have a tiny hole above their ears

The number of homes closed on but not yet sold came in right in line with expectations for the month of October.

Pending homes sales increased by 0.1% for the month according to the Association of Realtors. This was in line with economists' expectations.

This is a slowdown from the 1.5% increase in September, but continues to show growth for the housing sector.

Part of the reason for the slowdown, according to the NAR is the limited supply of homes for Americans to choose from.

"Many of the successful shoppers in October likely had to move fast and outbid others for the few listings available in the affordable price range," explained Yun. "Those obtaining a mortgage last month were likely the last group of buyers to lock in a rate near historically low levels now that rates have marched to around 4 percent since the election."

The real estate market has been outperforming on data recently, with the S&P Case Shiller housing index hitting its highest level since 2006, housing starts hitting a nine-year high, and a strong showing from existing home sales.

SEE ALSO: A 'serious hangover' is about to hit the bond market

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch the trailer for the new Martin Scorsese film that took over 20 years to make

If Netflix’s Fuller House reboot has proven anything, it’s how much people still love Full House. (Behold the magic of many years of broadcast syndication.)

However, if you needed further proof that Tanner nostalgia is a real thing, look no further than the fact that Full House creator Jeff Franklin just bought the San Francisco house that acts as the Tanner home for $4.15 million from a previous owner frustrated with the constant stream of Full House tourists.

“There are probably 250 fans per day that show up and take a picture in front of it,” Franklin told The Hollywood Reporter. “It will be a lot more fun for the fans because now the house will look like the Tanners really live there. It’s a gift to the fans but it’s also fun for me to own it.”

The house in question, which is located at 1709 Broderick Street in San Francisco’s Lower Pacific Heights neighborhood, didn’t have much to do with the original Full House production, despite being one of the most recognizable parts of the series. The show used many of the same stock shots of the exterior of the house for the eight seasons.

Franklin added: “No one has allowed us to shoot in that house since we did our very first stock shoot back in April of ’87. Our audience has watched the same cars drive by that house now for 29 years. It’s going to be really nice to see some new cars drive by the house.”

Franklin is already at work restored (or is it de-storing?) the house to its former Full House glory. He had changed the door from seafoam green back to its Tanner red. The Fuller House producer plans also plans to redo the modern interiors to make it more sitcom-y, as if the Tanners actually live there. We await the inevitable Pinterest design board.

Frankly, even if Franklin didn’t want the house for himself or to rent out (which he says is his ultimate plan), this is a great buy. Not only can Netflix use it for any future seasons of Fuller House that may come to be, but it is also kind of a genius marketing move for the second season of Fuller House that’s set to drop on Netflix in a few weeks on Dec. 9.

If none of that pans out, the house could definitely be turned into some kind of Full House Museum a la the A Christmas Story House that I am moderately convinced is one of Cleveland’s main tourist attractions. Full House fever is real, folks. When you’re lost out there and you’re all alone, a light is waiting to carry you home.

SEE ALSO: The San Francisco house from 'Full House' is on the market — and it's practically a steal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why Boeing 747s have a giant hump in the front

"Full House" creator Jeff Franklin made headlines recently when he revealed that he had purchased the actual Tanner family home, the front of which has been seen in both the original series and its Netflix spin-off.

"I went a little nuts one day and decided that would be a fun house for me to own," he told Business Insider.

The four-bedroom, four-bathroom, 2,500-square-foot San Francisco house went on sale in May for the first time in about a decade for $4.15 million. The time was right for Franklin, and he nabbed it for around $4 million.

"Coincidentally, ‘Fuller House’ is now on the air," he said. "There’s some benefit to the show to be able to go back there and shoot there and maybe we’ll have the cast come up, shoot some scenes outside of the house. I don’t know yet. We’re still waiting for a season-three pickup. It would be good for the show and it’s just fun for me to own that house."

Franklin hadn't been allowed to film the property since "Full House" premiered in 1987. Back then, the production paid about $500 to shoot various shots for use on the show. They weren't welcomed back years later when they wanted to shoot again, because the then-owner had become annoyed by the many "Full House" fans who visited it. Franklin estimates about 250 fans visit the location every day.

"Everyone had been watching the same shot of the outside of the house for 30 years now," Franklin said. "So it would be nice to get some new footage shot in 4K."

For now, Franklin has some work to do on the house. He needs to seismically retrofit it for safety in the earthquake-prone area.

"It’s going to be under construction for a while," he said. "We’re going to make sure it doesn’t fall down on anyone."

But the show creator sees several ways buying the house will pay off, including a potential tax write-off.

"I don’t think it’s going to be a big money-maker for me, for sure. So yeah, it will be some kind of a write-off I hope," Franklin responded when we asked if he could write off the purchase for his taxes. "But it’s more sentimental than anything. Both of these shows have just become a big part of my life. It just felt like the right thing to own it."

"Fuller House" returns for its second season December 9 on Netflix.

SEE ALSO: A 'Fuller House' star makes his directing debut on the new season, and the creator was 'nervous'

DON'T MISS: Here's how many people are watching one of Netflix's most expensive shows yet — and it's not great

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Netflix is giving part of the ‘Mythbusters’ team their own show — here’s the trailer

Being in close proximity to the President-elect has its perks, and it appears some real estate agents are looking to take advantage of that.

At least one condominium in Trump Tower — a one-bedroom unit located on the 31st floor and asking $2.1 million — is being advertised as"the best value in the most secure building in Manhattan."

According to Politico, an email blast trumpeting the building's heightened security went out on November 13, the day the unit was listed and only five days after Election Day.

"The New Aminity [sic] – The United States Secret Service," the email read.

The 263 condominiums in Trump Tower are all privately owned. The Trump Organization does manage the building, as well as all the amenities downstairs, and it takes a $2,000 processing fee for unit sales plus $250 per additional adult, Politico says.

The area around Trump Tower has been fortified since Trump was elected, with a heavy police presence and close monitoring of people going into and out of the tower. It is difficult for an average citizen with no legitimate business to get close to — or inside — the tower, which is designated a privately owned public space. Local ground-level tenants around the building have even complained of poor sales in the wake of the election.

It's easy to see why buyers seeking privacy or security might be attracted to the building in light of this. 

The fortification is unlikely to abate soon, as Melania Trump and her 10-year-old son, Barron, have reportedly elected to stay in New York and not move to Washington, DC when her husband takes office. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has asked the federal government to reimburse the cost of securing Trump Tower until Inauguration Day, to the tune of $35 million at a rate of $500,000 per day.

A spokesperson for Douglas Elliman Real Estate — whose brokers Ariel Sassoon and Devin Hugh Leahy are listing the unit — did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

SEE ALSO: Trump Tower is actually 10 floors shorter than Donald Trump says it is

DON'T FORGET: Follow Business Insider's lifestyle page on Facebook!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The Mayor of NYC is asking congress for $35 million to protect Trump until the inauguration

Renters and buyers across Manhattan are revolting against rising prices.

Bloomberg's Oshrat Carmiel reported on Tuesday that 432 Park Ave., the slim skyscraper that's the tallest residential building in the world, has sold units this year for an average of 10% less than the original listing price.

The top-floor penthouse overlooking Central Park closed for $87.7 million, 8% less than the listing price, Bloomberg reported.

There are too many luxury buildings in New York, and more are being constructed, which has meant high-end buyers and renters have more options and bargaining power. Meanwhile, owners have to offer more concessions to fend off their competition.

"New York City's rental market has been mostly steady, except at the high end, where the inventory has risen and rents have drifted down," the Federal Reserve said in its most recent Beige Book, based on comments from its contacts in New York.

The Fed added that landlord concessions, from price cuts to free rent, were "increasingly prevalent" in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Jonathan Miller, president of the appraiser Miller Samuel, told Bloomberg that the 432 Park Ave. developer is likely covering for buyers' taxes because sales prices usually end in odd, unrounded numbers, suggesting subtractions were made.

Head to Bloomberg for the full story »

SEE ALSO: The Fed confirmed some of the most troubling trends in Manhattan real estate

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A 58-story luxury apartment in San Francisco is sinking and people aren't sure why

For many, buying a home marks the realization of the American dream. But experts are split on whether it's really a worthwhile investment anymore. 

According to author and blogger James Altucher, it's financial suicide. He argues that purchasing a home is actually a bad investment because it ties up the majority of your money in one place, and the market is rarely favorable to sell — not to mention the slew of expenses for maintenance and repairs.

Altucher's not the only one rallying against home ownership. Grant Cardone, bestselling author, speaker, and motivator, has called buying a home "a scam." Cardone previously told Business Insider that the best investment you can make is in your freedom, and owning a house destroys that freedom by eliminating your choices and tying you to one place.

Bestselling author David Bach, who is releasing an updated version of his hit book "The Automatic Millionaire" this December, calls such views 'ridiculous' and argues that homeownership is a timeless principle of building wealth that, while boring, still works. 

"The pundits that say homeownership doesn't work: They're just wrong," Bach told Business Insider during a Facebook LIVE. "Homeowners in this country are worth 38 times what a renter is. If you want to guarantee yourself financial insecurity, rent for the rest of your life."

Bach argues that choosing to buy instead of rent sets you up for a secure — and fruitful — financial future because paying off your mortgage eliminates your monthly housing expense while enabling you to continue growing your wealth in other ways.

"You have to live somewhere for the rest of your life. You're either paying a landlord who's going to build wealth, or you're paying yourself," he explains. 

Bach gives the example of a couple who bought an average-sized home, worth around $250,000, to raise their kids in. They worked to pay down their mortgage early and owned it outright in 18 years. Instead of moving up into a bigger home once the mortgage was paid off, they moved into another similarly sized house and paid that off while renting out their original place. By 55, the couple was earning a steady rental income and living debt-free in a home they owned.

While this situation won't work out for every family, Bach's point still stands: Owning a home can help create avenues to build wealth, whether it's from profiting off a rental property or saving the money that would otherwise be put toward rent.

"Ultimate financial security comes from buying the home that you live in, paying it down, and getting it debt-free," he says.

Watch more from Business Insider's Facebook LIVE interview with David Bach:

SEE ALSO: The No. 1 sign you can afford to buy a home

DON'T MISS: The 12 key differences between buying and renting a home, in one chart

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 4 lottery winners who lost it all

One of my friends is 28 and she's looking to buy a house in San Francisco pretty soon.

Now, as you know, I'm not a big fan of real estate for investment reasons, but because I'm not an expert, I've been researching it more and more (see my links here). So when she mentioned wanting to buy a house, I asked one question: "Why?"

This is where things fell apart.

Her responses included things like:

"I don't want to waste money paying rent." I'm convinced this awful phrase was invented by Realtors BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE FOR EVERYONE. YOU ARE NOT WASTING RENT IF YOU LIVE IN AN EXPENSIVE AREA.

I asked what she thought about the real-estate market right now, considering many of the ARM resets are still coming. One response: "The market is already bad, so there's upside potential when I sell? What do you think of that logic? Prices are supposedly lower right now as a result." I don't think logic is enough to justify the biggest purchase of your life.

I also pasted a couple of the best articles on real estate: This one (Yahoo Finance) and this one (New York Times).

The result was interesting. She hadn't seen these, so she asked me what I would do with my money. At this point, I was at a coffee shop and one of them lived near me, so she came over to talk about this in-person. I looked over her finances and realized she had tens of thousands of dollars just sitting around, earning hardly any interest. Even putting it in a Capital One 360 (formerly ING) savings account would have gotten her hundreds of dollars a month.

The first thing I did was suggest three books to her on investing (more books I recommend). We talked for a while, and I suggested some things she could do to improve her finances and start earning more. After about 20 minutes of back-and-forth, I asked her what she was going to do for her next steps. "I'm going to be honest," she said. "I'm not going to read those books."

I thought this was really fascinating. Here's someone who has tens of thousands of dollars earning 0.5% interest and she's so resistant to the idea of reading investment books that she almost bought a million-dollar house instead. Five years ago, she had a significant amount of money. What if she had invested it in the stock market?

And five years from now, wouldn't she be happy that she spent 5-10 hours reading a few books to get her finances in order?

SEE ALSO: In our pursuit of passive income, too many of us overlook an opportunity for wealth

Why young people still think of real estate as an investment

One of the best things to happen from the real-estate bust that we're undergoing is to make people think twice about real estate as an investment. That's right — to actually consciously think about why they're making the biggest purchase of their lives, rather than just buying a house because "it's the next thing to do."

And yet, I'm still stunned when I hear about my friends "investing" in real estate, especially in the Bay Area. (Yes, real estate can be profitable and great, but in some areas of the country there are far better investments).

I thought about it over the weekend, and I think there are a few reasons why real estate still seems to appealing to my friends:

1. They have some money lying around and know they should be doing something
2. They don't know anything about investing, and the barriers to knowledge seem high
3. Real estate represents something tangible — and something their parents probably keep reminding them about
4. Society still explicitly and implicitly rewards homeowners (just think about a young friend who owns a home — are others impressed?)
5. THEY HAVE BEEN IGNORING EVERYTHING IN THE NEWS EVERY DAY FOR THE LAST ONE YEAR ABOUT REAL ESTATE (???)
6. It's easier to do new things than to look back at old things, like reading books or handpicked articles about real-estate (Seriously, how many people will click and read through those links?)

Research for gargantuan purchases = good

Here's the point: Buying a house is the biggest purchase you'll ever make. When you do it, you need to understand exactly why. That means an extensive amount of research. When I bought a car, for example, I spent months learning about every trick under the sun. I had 17 dealers negotiating with each other to get my business. And that was to save a few thousand dollars!

Now, I'm Indian and I'm weird, but I did that for buying a car. When I buy a house, I expect to enlist the help of several third-world researchers for months of research and, when I walk into the final negotiation, I will be accompanied by a large hairy man, a metal baton, and a chimp. IT'S THE BIGGEST PURCHASE OF YOUR LIFE. WHY WOULDN'T YOU SPEND TIME UNDERSTANDING THE PROS AND CONS OF IT?

You know, on one hand, much of this site is about getting started and not spending too much time doing endless research. But there's a balance, as I describe in my article on conscious spending— you need to know the basics, and you need to know much more for real estate, which you can't just sell the next day if you decide you don't like it. When I pointed out sites like Patrick.net to my friend, she had never heard of them.

As usual, there are lots of ads and media influences to buy, but ultimately we make the decision on how much to research our real-estate purchases. I'm not saying it's a bad decision — although my real-estate colors are clearly showing — but when I read a real-estate blog like SocketSite, I realize I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about real estate as others.

The 3-book solution

For many, what seems like an intimidating amount of research can be broken down by buying three books and reading them. Instead of coming in with a blank slate, you go to Amazon, find the highest-rated books in your area, and read them in a couple of weeks. I've done this with books on marketing, venture capital, and psychology. I keep a notepad and write down my questions. After three books, you'll have very targeted and specific questions to ask someone. (Instead of "what should I do???" you might say, "Should I choose a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k)?")

In July, I wrote about how asking targeted questions can get you targeted answers. To get the right answers about investing, pick up a few books — whether these ones or other ones — and get started by asking the right questions.

Here are the three best books to get started investing:

• "The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing," by Taylor Larimore, Mel Lindauer, Michael LeBoeuf, and John C. Bogle

• "Unconventional Success: A Fundamental Approach to Personal Investment," by David F. Swensen

• "The Money Book for the Young, Fabulous & Broke," by Suze Orman

Should you buy or rent a home?

The flowchart below may be able to help you decide.

Like with most money questions, there's no one universal answer. Instead, it depends on your own situation, from the state of your savings to whether you're willing to coordinate getting a leaky faucet fixed.

When going through the chart, keep in mind that your answer is just for now. If the chart says that you're better off renting, then it certainly doesn't mean that you have to rent forever.

In six months, a year, or even a matter of weeks, your situation could change and so could your answer.

For more insight into any of these questions, check out the explanation from financial experts.

SEE ALSO: Here's how long it will take to have a down payment by saving $10 a day

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We Did The Math: Should You Buy Or Rent In These Major Cities?

Jarred Kessler, a 15-year Wall Street veteran and former head of US equities at financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, came up with his big idea when a friend lost his job.

His friend was in a tough spot and thought about putting his house on the market, but didn't want the associated "public scrutiny" of a "For Sale" sign on his lawn or neighbors talking.

He wanted to keep it discreet, and he wanted to know the value of his home in case he needed to sell. He wanted to test the market without being in the market, Kessler told Business Insider. 

Kessler realized that no other services currently on the market offered potential sellers a chance to quietly assess the value of their homes. Then, trouble with regulators at his Wall Street job pushed him to leave Cantor and create one.

Enter EasyKnock.

EasyKnock is a residential real estate technology startup on a mission to change the process of listing and selling one’s home. It should be up and running by February.

"What's going on in the real estate market is what happened 35 years ago on Wall Street," Kessler told Business Insider. "People said this is how business is done, things are never going to change."

"I think finance is in the seventh inning," he said, "and the residential real estate market is still in the first inning."

Broker free

People normally turn to a professional real estate broker to list their homes, and the broker's goals aren't always aligned with the seller, according to Kessler.

"Once the pressure is on, the buyer, seller and broker will all have competing agendas, and it's hard to know if you are getting the right price, or just the 'right now' price," the EasyKnock website reads. 

He aims to connect buyers and owners directly and create a platform that's broker-free. "We think there's a place for empowering people to do it themselves," said Kessler to Business Insider. "We don't see it as a matter of if but a matter of when. And we want to be the first to do it."

The direct sales platform pulls in real-time market data on homes that are both listed and not yet listed.  On the site, homeowners can set a price and "test the waters," and buyers can potentially gain access to a large number of homes that are not currently on the market, "but might be if the price was right." 

"We think because of obstacles like public scrutiny and days on the market, a lot of people would love to know if people are interested in their houses but don't want to go all into the commitment," said Kessler. "So we started with the question: what would compel you to sell your house?"

EasyKnock takes buyers though an intent-based search, or a series of tailored questions to match them with their dream houses. If a buyer and seller connect, EasyKnock aims to streamline the process by providing third party referrals of surveyors, inspectors, mortgage advisors and lawyers. Kessler says buyers are vetted and that there is a "policing process" where bad actors are kicked out.

Leaving Cantor

Kessler resigned from his position as head of US equities at Cantor Fitzgerald in December 2015 after the firm faced allegations over the sale of unregistered microcap stocks. The brokerage industry's regulator, Finra, said he had failed to set up a system of properly overseeing the sales in his role there. He settled the case without admission of guilt, and was fined and subject to a principal capacity suspension. 

Although he had come up with the idea of EasyKnock while he was still at Cantor, he doesn't know if he would have otherwise left to pursue this opportunity. Kessler previously served as an executive director in global credit strategy at Credit Suisse, head of credit focused equities at Morgan Stanley and a VP in risk and portfolio management at Goldman Sachs.

"I left the firm because I felt like that the regulatory and technology environment was impacting the promise of business and that it's harder to make money in finance," he said. 

Kessler and co-founder Ben Black have raised an angel round and are in the process of closing a seed round. EasyKnock will charge a transaction fee in the range of 1.5-2.5%, third party referrals fees and advertising fees. The duo aim to pilot the app in New York, starting in Long Island in June. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A penny costs 1.43 cents to make — here’s what the rest of US currency costs

The iconic mixed-use 58-story Trump Tower, on 721 Fifth Avenue, in Midtown Manhattan, with top-dollar retailers such as Tiffany’s nearby, was the ultimate in condo living when it was built in 1983. Now it’s even more iconic as President Elect Donald Trump holds court there, among enormous security measures and the daily flow of potentates, moguls, Big Oil CEOs, the occasional Silicon Valley wunderkind, billionaires, retired generals, Goldman Sachs folks, and the like.

But not all is well at this piece of glamorous real estate.

Of its 238 apartments – located on the top 38 floors, including nine duplex and triplex penthouses on the top nine floors – 11 are actively listed for sale, according to CityRealty, and another 12 are listed for rent. Asking prices and asking rents have been slashed to get the units to move, and it’s not working very well.

The table below shows the 11 apartment listed for sale. Three of them consist of two units that have been combined: 42BC, 58CD and 37D/38D. Five sellers have cut their asking prices, with reductions ranging from -7.8% to -26.8%. And note for how long they’ve been on the market (right column), in a market that isn’t exactly ideal:

For some units, asking prices have been cut more than once. For example, 37D/38D, with 2,184 sq ft, was originally listed over a year ago, in August 2015, for $6.9 million, according to StreetEasy. In February 2016, the asking price was cut to $6.5 million, in June 2016 to $6.2 million, and in October 2016 to $5.995 million for a total reduction of 13.1%. And still no takers.

The potential buyer can expect to pay common charges of $3,620 per month and taxes of $3,328 per month, according to StreetEasy. This would come on top of the mortgage. At current asking price, with 10% down, financed with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage at 4.2%, the monthly payment would be $26,400. So that would amount to monthly outlays of $33,348. But the views are nice.

Unit 32H was first listed for sale in January 2016 for $2.999 million. In March, the asking price was slashed to $2.5 million, and in May it was slashed to $2.195 million, in total 26.8% in reductions, and still no takers.

And there is a lot of competition. Zillow lists 6,330 apartments for sale in Manhattan alone. And the trend has not been the friend recently. Trulia figured that the median selling price of New York City apartments dropped 4.1% from a year ago, as sales volume has withered:

There are another 12 apartments for rent at Trump Tower, including one with two original units combined (34EF). In the table below by CityRealty, note the reductions in asking rents, ranging from -1.7% to -11.8%. These are just asking rents and do not include any concessions:

These units have a lot of company. Apartments.com lists 11,014 apartments for rent just in Manhattan. As I reported earlier this month, according to Zumper, the median asking rent for a one-bedroom in New York City dropped 7.4% from a year ago, and for a two-bedroom 7.9%.

But that’s just the asking rent. They’re kept as high as possible for appearances’ sake. To motivate potential tenants, rent concessions are piled on separately. These rent concessions just set a new record in Manhattan, according to the Elliman Report, with concessions now offered on 25.1% of all new rentals, up from 13.5% a year ago.

Is all this just a dip in New York City’s real-estate boom? Maybe not – as ominous clouds are forming. The New York Post, citing data from Attom Data Solutions, reported the foreclosures are once again surging:

More than 1,100 NYC households fell into foreclosure in October, a 32% increase from September, and a 37% increase from last year. Queens, which has been hard-hit since the foreclosure crisis began in 2007, had 400 new cases last month, nearly double the number of a year ago.

Brooklyn also took it on the chin, with 365 new cases, a 20% increase. Statewide, the number of new cases jumped 15%…..

“We’re definitely seeing a spike,” Westchester-based attorney Linda Tirelli told the New York Post.

So Trump Tower may be getting hit a little harder than other buildings in New York, given the brouhaha about the election campaign and now the even greater brouhaha around the President Elect holding court in it. But the entire Manhattan housing market, after years of booming at a blistering pace, is seeing the sudden and very unpleasant arrival of second thoughts.

SEE ALSO: These 2 factors could burst the economy's post-election rally in 2017

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The best way to clear out a ton of space on your iPhone superfast

The average sales price of an apartment in Manhattan is expected to top $2 million this year for the first time, but prices are seen leveling off in 2017 after nearly doubling over the past decade.

Prices were pushed higher by a jump in sales of condominiums valued at $10 million or more, which skewed results, CityRealty, a real estate listings and data website for New York City, said on Wednesday.

The opening of 432 Park Avenue, a 96-story tower marketed by developers as the tallest residential building in the Americas, had an outsized effect on prices, said CityRealty research director Gabby Warshawer.

Fifty-two of the 75 units sold at the tower overlooking Central Park fetched more than $10 million, she said. Some units are priced at more than $40 million.

An increase in new developments and a rise in the price of existing units also lifted the market, Warshawer said.

Prices have climbed every year since 2011 but are expected to flatline next year. A lack of expensive, large new buildings will act to keep prices in check in 2017, CityRealty said.

The potential impact on sales and prices of the recent rise in mortgage rates was not analyzed, Warshawer said.

Mortgage rates have shot up since the Nov. 8 U.S. election as interest rates have climbed broadly on expectations of faster economic growth and accelerating inflation under stimulus programs President-elect Donald Trump wants to enact.

The interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage now averages 4.27 percent, a two-year high, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, up from about 3.60 percent in the weeks before the election.

CityRealty examined sales registrations from New York City's Department of Finance. Much of Harlem and nearby areas were excluded because it is a small piece of the market and affordable housing data is more difficult to glean, she said.

December 2016 sales were extrapolated based on the year's data through Nov. 30.

The average co-op and condo price in Manhattan excluding Harlem and nearby areas rose to $2.2 million in 2016 from a record $1.9 million the year before, CityRealty estimated. For all of Manhattan, the average sales price was $2.1 million.

A condo is owned directly, but the buyer of a co-op obtains shares in a corporation that owns the building.

The median price for apartments, or the middle of all sales considered, also set a record at $1.2 million, up from $1.1 million last year, in the area examined.

A decade ago, the price of new condo units was almost the same as existing ones, but prices at new developments since 2008 have outpaced those of existing ones.

The average price for an apartment in the area of Manhattan examined was 91 percent higher than in 2006, CityRealty said.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why Boeing 747s have a giant hump in the front

Academy Award winner Leonardo DiCaprio sold his eco-friendly Greenwich Village condo for $8 million The Real Deal reported– $2 million less than the $10 million he paid for it in 2014.

Follow BI Video: On Twitter 

Join the conversation about this story »

Jewelry isn't the only thing Ivanka Trump is hawking. According to city records, the soon-to-be First Daughter has listed an apartment at 502 Park Avenue (a Trump building) for $4.1 million.

Trump purchased the condo in 2004 for $1.5 million, and listed it for a day in 2011. She later transferred it to an LLC that she controls in 2015. The 1,549-square-foot apartment has two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a corner living and dining room and a chef's kitchen.

The listing notes that the unit is a sponsor unit (meaning that it is being sold directly by the developer).

Trump also owns a penthouse in the building, which she also bought in 2011 for a rumored $16 million. That unit does appear to be listed at this time. Trump's husband, developer Jared Kushner, told the Wall Street Journal earlier this year that he and Ivanka might purchase a unit at the Puck Building, which he owns, and rumors were swirling earlier this month that the couple was house hunting for a home in D.C. to be closer to the White House.

Read the original story on Luxury Listings NYC. Copyright 2016.

MORE FROM LUXURY LISTINGS:

Sculptor Anish Kapoor picks up $13.5M unit at 56 Leonard, where his artwork is on display

Largest 3D printed structure ever commissioned debuts in Miami

Former Sports Illustrated model nabs FiDi condo

SEE ALSO: Trump's proposed tariff could cause a major problem for Ivanka's $100 million business

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Ivanka can't serve in a Trump cabinet