The Mumbai property question. Not "is buying always better" (it isn't) — but: over your specific time horizon, do you end up richer renting + investing the difference, or buying + owning? The math is opinionated. Run the numbers.
Leave an email or a number — either one works — and Archita will follow up with a plain-English read on what these figures mean for you. No spam. No drip campaigns.
Buyer at end of horizon: Owns property worth (price × appreciation^years), minus any outstanding loan if tenure > horizon. Renter at end of horizon: Has invested the down payment + the monthly difference (EMI − rent) in mutual funds at the assumed return.
Both started with the same money. Whoever has higher net wealth at the end wins. This isn't about lifestyle — that's a separate decision. This is purely the financial math.
Stamp duty + registration (~6%), maintenance (~₹50-150/sqft annually in Mumbai), brokerage on resale, mental cost of property hassle, the lifestyle freedom of renting (move closer to a new job, downsize when kids leave). The opposite: pride of ownership, security, ability to renovate, intergenerational wealth.
Most of these don't show up in a calculator. They should show up in your decision.
Generally: long horizons (15+ years), reasonable loan rates (under 8%), high property appreciation areas, and when you're done moving. Buying becomes especially compelling when you would have rented for 20+ years anyway.
Renting usually wins when: short horizons (under 7 years), high property prices relative to rent, high alternative returns. Talk to Archita for a personalized opinion.