[quote=scaredycat]
also same logic applies to your flat 20% scenario, you’re not “subtracting the 20% you’re using it to make it seem like it was cheaper to live int he house than it was. it’s being show as a profit, the ‘negaitve” number isn’t a loss, it’s a “negative cost” of lviing there…[/quote]
You’re right about this one, you can add $66k to the FHA side and $62k for the conventional side for all the scenarios.

[quote=scaredycat]if im right on that, the numbers look more reaosnable to me. thenby putting 80k into the deal, you got a return on your 80k of 93k, about 110% over 8 years. Not bad but not as big as your numbers looked. so. what’s more likely to happen. a 20% rise in housing or a doubling of gold over the next 8 years? [/quote]
Also, it’s not as simple as just doubling in gold. The $93k is tax free, while $ you made from gold is taxable. How much that will hurt depends on your tax bracket. Then there’s also the ~$62k that you’ll save over 8 years from lower monthly payment. You have to subtract that and the income you’ll make from that in your gold equation. Assuming you don’t invest the $62k in savings and your tax bracket is 25%, your gold portfolio would have to triple in value in order to yield the save $93k return. $66k * 3 = $198k ($132k is taxable * 0.66 = $87k after tax). $66k + $87k – $62k = $91k.

It’s not $93k from the 80k but 93k from the $66k, since you also had to put down $14k in the FHA loan too.