> being debt assumes appreciation on the asset
No it doesn't. The math works out the same regardless of changes in asset value. Paying cash has significant opportunity and liquidity costs. These can often exceed the cost of debt.
No it doesn't. The math works out the same regardless of changes in asset value. Paying cash has significant opportunity and liquidity costs. These can often exceed the cost of debt.
ask yourself why “we” think that some debt (e.g. real estate) is great) while others (e.g. vehicle) is bad? it just might ge that one is looked at as appreciating asset while the other not so much.
comments like yours always remind of the stripper scene from the movie “big short”
having debt also makes you a forever slave (true capitalism at work). God forbid you lose your source(s) of income and don’t have FU money or significant stash, now you fucked. with no debt and roof over your head life is infinitely better even during trying times..
In many cases the risk is literally zero, the scenarios you are imagining where it has bad consequences don't exist as a real thing that can happen. If you have enough money to pay cash then you also have enough money to pay off the equivalent debt at any time of your convenience.
Many people believe many things that are not based in physical reality. Many popular beliefs about debt are no different and debt has no intrinsic moral significance.
I presume this is hyperbole and that what you mean is almost or very near zero.
say SP500 nominal avg is around 10% - no brainer, yes? but that is an avg of many 30-year windows. some 30-year windows might not be that kind to you. market crash in say first 5-6 years will hurt you a lot
so there is just no certainty here except we think (just like we expect appreciation on the house) we’ll end up on the “right” side of this.
and of course not to mention the most obvious, roughly 99.56% of people will not be investing this money to get more than 4%…