I’m 52, single and worried I’ll still be paying rent at 70. With $310,000 in retirement savings, have I left it too late to buy a home? VANESSA STOYKOV
A 52-year-old single renter earning $125,000 annually is anxious about continuing to pay rent into retirement, particularly given her friends' homeownership. With $310,000 in retirement savings and $65,000 in liquid savings, but facing the prospect of a large mortgage in her 50s whilst her peers pay theirs off, she wonders whether she has missed her window to purchase property.
Money educator Vanessa Stoykov recommends seeking professional financial advice to model three scenarios: buying soon, waiting until her child moves out, or continuing to rent strategically. She emphasises that the woman has strong income, significant savings, and potentially 15+ working years remaining, but needs a comprehensive plan that accounts for interest rate rises, employment changes, her child's potential contribution to household costs, and flexible retirement timing.
- 52-year-old renter with $310,000 savings worries about affording rent at 70
- Financial adviser recommends modelling three scenarios: buy soon, wait, or rent strategically
- Strong income and time remaining mean it's not too late, but requires proper planning
New here? Start with this
A growing concern for many older renters is whether they can afford to buy a home before retirement or must continue paying rent into their later years. This story examines the situation of a 52-year-old single woman who earns $125,000 annually but has not yet purchased property and worries about her financial security in retirement.
She has $310,000 saved for retirement and a further $65,000 in accessible savings, putting her ahead of many renters her age. However, the prospect of taking on a large mortgage in her 50s—whilst friends her age are paying off mortgages or own their homes outright—raises the question of whether home ownership remains realistic.
The case raises broader questions about housing, timing, and financial planning that affect many people approaching retirement. Despite her concerns, her strong income and substantial savings mean she has options to explore, though each path carries different trade-offs that need careful consideration.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for purchasing emphasise that at 52 with a strong income of $125,000 and $310,000 in savings, she remains in a robust position to secure a mortgage when many peers cannot qualify. Homeownership has historically proved the most reliable wealth-building tool, and owning one's home before retirement provides both financial security and psychological comfort that renting cannot replicate. With potentially 15+ working years remaining, she could structure payments strategically or work slightly longer to clear the mortgage well before traditional retirement age.
The case against
Sceptics argue that taking on a large mortgage at 52 replicates the very problem she fears—housing payments extending into her seventies. Renting in retirement offers crucial flexibility to downsize, relocate for health reasons, or adapt without being anchored to a property, whilst her $310,000 in savings could generate superior returns through diversified investment, ensuring housing costs eventually decrease rather than remain fixed. The social pressure toward homeownership should not override a realistic assessment of whether renting strategically better serves her long-term financial security and peace of mind.