diff --git a/website/blog/buying_a_house_is_a_mistake.md b/website/blog/buying_a_house_is_a_mistake.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..892f23da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/blog/buying_a_house_is_a_mistake.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+---
+title: "My take on a housing podcast: Rent vs. Buy Is Not One Decision"
+publishing_date: "2026-05-04"
+category: "others"
+description: "The podcast argument against buying a home is strongest for young mobile professionals, but much weaker once you distinguish between different households and the very different risks they face."
+tokenID: 196
+---
+
+This post is about an [episode of the the podcast "the Diary of a CEO"](https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ehl7eaYZvItjnVhTbokaa?si=D_Fv02TnQvShBtz5zvVlQQ&t=3657) with an expert (Ben Felix) on whether buying a home is a mistake. The presented arguments sound appealing at first glance. They sound clean, empirical, and easy to operationalize. It goes roughly like this: add up the unrecoverable costs of owning, compare them with rent, invest the difference in index funds, and you have a practical rule for a messy decision.
+
+I think that model is useful in certain situations, just like many other rules of thumb for housing. However, a young mobile professional, a family that wants to stay in one place, and a wealthy household buying an additional property are not solving the same problem.  That is why I do not think rent versus buy should be treated as one generic optimization exercise like the podcast seems to suggest.
+
+## The part I find persuasive
+
+The podcast is strongest when it talks about visible owner costs and mobility.
+
+Mortgage interest, property tax and maintenance costs are real, and probably underestimated by many first-time buyers. Transaction costs are real too. If your career is changing, your relationships are not settled, and your housing needs may look completely different in three years, ownership can become a very expensive way to reduce your own flexibility.
+
+That is not a unimportant consideration. For young mobile households it may even be the central point. In that setting, the warning against buying early can be genuinely useful.
+
+## Pain point 1: the household changes the decision
+
+My core issue starts here. The episode presents a strong argument, but it presents it as if it applied to one generic household. I do not think that is fair.
+
+Consider the first household: a young professional which is likely to switch cities for career opportunities and therefore puts a high value on mobility. Here ownership can genuinely be a drag. You may move for work, want a different city, or need a different type of home within a few years. In that case, transaction costs, illiquidity, and the psychological pull of staying put can dominate the decision.
+
+The second household is solving a different problem: a family that wants to stay in one place. Here the main risk is not only opportunity cost. It is housing security. Can you stay near the school? Can you remain in the same neighborhood? What happens if rents jump or if the local rental market tightens at the wrong moment? For this household, ownership is not only an asset choice. It can also be a way to reduce the risk of a disruptive housing shock.
+
+The third household is different again: people whose primary residence no longer dominates their wealth, or people buying an additional property. Once housing is no longer the dominant item on the balance sheet, the question moves closer to standard portfolio analysis: concentration, leverage, taxes, diversification, and expected return. The utility argument is weaker for a third property than for the home you actually live in.
+
+That is why the same argument can be useful for one listener and too broad for another. It is not one decision with one clean answer.
+
+## Pain point 2: a primary residence is not just another asset
+
+This is the second place where I think the simple comparison becomes too thin. A primary residence is not just capital sitting in walls. It delivers a necessary consumption stream: stable housing in a particular place.
+
+That matters most in bad states. A bad stock-market year is unpleasant. A bad housing state can be much more disruptive, especially for households rooted in one place. A forced sale, problems in refinancing, or being priced out of the local rental market does not just lower wealth on paper. It can change schooling, commuting, childcare arrangements, and daily life.
+
+For a young high-income renter with plenty of flexibility, the difference may be less severe. For a wealthy household buying an additional property, it is weaker again. But for the primary residence of a family or a long-term stayer, I think it is a material distinction.
+
+The comparison is also not just house returns versus ETF returns. For many households, the house is the asset that determines whether they remain stably housed. That is a different object from a financial portfolio position. The question is not only which asset compounds faster. The question is what function the house has to fulfill for this household.
+
+Owner-occupation can also hedge rent risk for people who expect to stay. If you own the home you plan to live in for a long time, rising local housing costs are less dangerous to you than to a renter who has to keep buying housing services on the market. That does not make ownership automatically better. It does mean the risk profile changes.
+
+This point also travels differently across countries. I would be careful here, because I do not want to pretend one sentence settles international housing markets. But I do think the advice weakens once tenancy law, inflation, rent control, and local rental-market structure differ substantially from the Canadian or US cases that usually sit behind these discussions.
+
+## Pain point 3: the return framing is too narrow
+
+The podcast puts a lot of weight on opportunity cost. In the narrow sense, that might be fair. Equity tied up in a house cannot also be invested in the stock market. But if that becomes the center of the analysis, the comparison starts to lose important parts of the decision.
+
+Expected returns are the least stable input in the whole exercise. Long-run stock returns may exceed long-run house price growth, but households do not experience that as a clean constant. If the decision depends heavily on a return assumption, then the apparent precision of the spreadsheet can be misleading.
+
+## Pain point 4: a bad housing state hurts more than a bad investment year
+
+This is where the academic literature becomes useful, not as decoration, but to show that the right answer really does change with household type, time horizon, and how painful a bad housing outcome would be.
+
+[Cocco](https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/18/2/535/1599873?login=false) shows why housing dominates the balance sheet for ordinary households. [Yao and Zhang](https://personal.utdallas.edu/~hxz054000/RFS_YaoZhang.pdf) show that total net worth and liquid-portfolio risk are not the same thing once housing enters the picture.
+
+Taken together, these papers do not say that buying is always better. They say something more nuanced: once housing matters enough, the right answer depends on horizon, mobility, liquidity, balance-sheet concentration, and whether the property is your home or just another asset.
+
+I also think this is where the economic concept of expected utility matters. Households typically fear bad housing states more than an equivalent euro loss in an investment account.  Housing disruption simply hits daily life directly. I tried to simulate this cleanly for myself at one point but that model was super fragile. Small assumptions about how painful housing disruption is can changed the output a lot. That experience is one reason I am reluctant to replace one universal rule with another.
+
+## Questions I would ask instead
+
+So the question I would ask is not only whether buying a house is a mistake.
+
+I would ask:
+
+1. Which kind of household am I actually?
+2. How likely am I to move in the next few years?
+3. Is this mainly a housing-security decision or a portfolio-allocation decision?
+4. How much of my wealth would this property dominate?
+5. How costly would a bad housing state be for me?
+6. Is this my home, or just another property?
+
+For a young, mobile person, the podcast argument may be very strong. For a family that wants to stay put, it is less complete. For a wealthy household buying an additional property, the problem changes again.
+
+That is the part I find misleading in the slogan. Buying a house is not automatically a mistake. Treating every housing decision as the same optimization problem is.