1. Determine the required monthly payments for the mortgage.
2. Determine the “opportunity” costs, on a monthly basis, of using the required funds for closing (i.e., down payment plus all closing costs), rather than leaving those funds invested and earning the monthly effective rate determined in question (1).
3. Determine the monthly additional payments required to buy versus rent (include the monthly
opportunity costs determined in question (2).
4. Determine the principal outstanding on the mortgage after:
a. Two years
b. Five years
c. Ten years
5. Determine the “net” future gain or loss after two, five and 10 years under the following scenarios, which Rebecca Young has determined are possible after some “due diligence” regarding future real estate prices in the Toronto condo market:
a. The condo price remains unchanged.
b. The condo price drops 10 per cent over the next two years, then increases back to its purchase price by the end of five years, then increases by a total of 10 per cent from the original purchase price by the end of 10 years.
c. The condo price increases annually by the annual rate of inflation of 2 per cent per year over the next 10 years.
d. The condo price increases annually by an annual rate of 5 per cent per year over the next 10
6. As Rebecca Young, what decision would you make?
W14403 TIME VALUE OF MONEY: THE BUY VERSUS RENT DECISION Sean Cleary and Stephen Foerster wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to
illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other
identifying information to protect confidentiality.
This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) firstname.lastname@example.org; www.iveycases.com.
Copyright © 2014, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2015-06-05 In May 2013, Rebecca Young completed her MBA and moved to Toronto for a new job in investment
banking. There, she rented a spacious, two-bedroom condominium for $3,000 per month, which included
parking but not utilities or cable television. In July 2014, the virtually identical unit next door became
available for sale with an asking price of $620,000, and Young believed she could purchase it for
$600,000. She realized she was facing the classic buy-versus-rent decision. It was time for her to apply
some of the analytical tools she had acquired in business school — including “time value of money”
concepts — to her personal life.
While Young really liked the condominium unit she was renting, as well as the condominium building
itself, she felt that it would be inadequate for her long-term needs, as she planned to move to a house or
even to a larger penthouse condominium within five to 10 years — even sooner if her job continued to
work out well.
Friends and family had given Young a variety of mixed opinions concerning the buy-versus-rent debate,
ranging from “you’re throwing your money away on rent” to “it’s better to keep things as cheap and
flexible as possible until you are ready to settle in for good.” She realized that both sides presented good
arguments, but she wanted to analyze the buy-versus-rent decision from a quantitative point of view in
order to provide some context for the qualitative considerations that would ultimately be a major part of
FINANCIAL DETAILS If Young purchased the new condominium, she would pay monthly condo fees of $1,055 per month, plus
property taxes of $300 per month on the unit. Unlike when renting, she would also be responsible for
repairs and general maintenance, which she estimated would average $600 per year.
If she decided to purchase the new unit, Young intended to provide a cash down payment of 20 per cent
of the purchase price. There was also a local deed-transfer tax of approximately 1.5 per cent of the
purchase price, and a provincial deed-transfer tax of 1.5 per cent, both due on the purchase date. (For This document is authorized for use only in Capital Budgeting and Corporate Objectives (Winter 2016) by Knyazeva, A., University of Rochester from February 2016 to August 2016. Page 2 9B14N024 simplicity, Young planned to initially ignore any other tax considerations throughout her analysis.) Other
closing fees were estimated to be around $2,000.
In order to finance the remaining 80 per cent of the purchase price, Young contacted several lenders and
found that she would be able to obtain a mortgage at a 4 per cent “quoted” annual rate1 that would be
locked in for a 10-year term and that she would amortize the mortgage over 25 years, with monthly
payments. The money that Young was planning to use for her down payment and closing costs was
presently invested and was earning the same effective monthly rate of return as she would be paying on
her mortgage. Young assumed that if she were to sell the condominium — say, in the next two to 10 years
— she would pay 5 per cent of the selling price to realtor fees plus $2,000 in other closing fees.
SCENARIO ANALYSIS In order to complete a financial analysis of the buy-versus-rent decision, Young realized that her first task
would be to determine the required monthly mortgage payments. Next, she wanted to determine the
opportunity cost (on a monthly basis) of using the lump-sum required funds for the condominium
purchase rather than leaving those funds invested and earning the effective monthly rate, assumed to be
equivalent to the mortgage rate. She would then be able to determine additional monthly payments
required to buy the condominium compared to renting, including the opportunity cost.
Young wanted to consider what might happen if she chose to sell the condominium at a future date. She
was confident that any re-sell would not happen for at least two years, but it could certainly happen in five
or 10 years’ time. She needed to model the amount of the outstanding principal at various points in the
future — two, five or 10 years from now. She then wanted to determine the net future gain or loss after
two, five and 10 years under the following scenarios, which she had determined were possible after some
due diligence regarding future real-estate prices in the Toronto condo market: (a) The condo price
remains unchanged; (b) The condo price drops 10 per cent over the next two years, then increases back to
its purchase price by the end of five years, then increases by a total of 10 per cent from the original
purchase price by the end of 10 years; (c) The condo price increases annually by the annual rate of
inflation of 2 per cent per year over the next 10 years; and (d) The condo price increases annually by an
annual rate of 5 per cent per year over the next 10 years.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Young realized she had a tough decision ahead of her, but she was well trained to make these types of
decisions. She also recognized that her decision would not be based on quantitative factors alone; it would
need to be based on any qualitative considerations as well. She knew she needed to act soon because
condominiums were selling fairly quickly, and she would need to arrange financing and contact a lawyer to
assist in any paperwork if she decided to buy. 1 In Canada, quoted mortgage rates are based on semi-annual compounding, compared with personal loans and most U.S.
mortgages based on monthly compounding. This document is authorized for use only in Capital Budgeting and Corporate Objectives (Winter 2016) by Knyazeva, A., University of Rochester from February 2016 to August 2016.