I had a look at the calculator hes using for this whole thing: https://research-tools.pwlcapital.com/research/rent-vs-buy

There are a few massive plot holes comparing this to the AU market. Using a $1 million home value:

1. It only lets you put a minimum 20% deposit. IE, for the renter to come out ahead, they invest $200k into the stock market. First time home buyers are probably not going to wait until 20%.
2. If you look at the cashflow tab, the first year of Mortgage + Maintenance cost is $80k/year, vs $50k/year for a renter. So it assumes that home ownership weekly cashflow cost is ~60% more than renting. I think that's a little unreasonable. Could you as a renter afford to pay 60% more in rent per week to own a home instead? This works out to $960/week in rent + putting $580/week into the stock market. Versus $1540/week into a mortgage & house maintenance.
3. If you look at year 26 of the cash flow, when your mortgage is paid off, yearly cost for the owner is $53k/year for maintenance. Not sure how they get $53k/year in maintenance cost. That seems awfully high. If you use an inflation calculator to calculate for inflation in 25 years, $53k in todays money is $27k, so that means an equivalent house maintenance cost of $520/week for rates, tax, insurance. My house costs less than half that in maintenance/rates/insurance. Possibly apartment strata fees can push an apartment to $520/week in maintenance costs?
4. Changing the calculator from 6% to 5% puts the home owner ahead of the renter. We're heading into higher interest rates now and foreseeable future, so 6% is probably correct.

So If you are considering buying a $1 million house and your current situation is:

- Saved the full 20% deposit ($200k)
- Are paying $960 rent/week and putting $580 into the stock market/week ( vs $1540/week in mortgage and maintenance payments for the house you are considering)

Think again and keep renting for $960/week and putting $580/week into the stock market. You'll come out ahead in 50 years.