Just for the record, I don't think that South Korea is particularly cheap. As OP demonstrates, one can live there for USD 1000/month, but that really holds for most countries. While the US is in the top 5% in terms of nominal GDP per capita, South Korea is in the top 15%. For cheap, yet comfortable and safe, I'd aim around the median, eg Indonesia or Georgia.

ETA: Nomadlist suggests €1,925/mo for Seoul, €1,530/mo for Jeju Island, South Korea; €1,047/mo for Tbilisi, Georgia; €627/mo for Bandung, Indonesia.

ETA: Nomadlist has a list of places below USD 1000/mo: https://nomadlist.com/places-on-a-budget

You don't have to live in the capital of Georgia (or Korea for that matter). Just a little outside the capital is already much more reasonable. You also don't have to maintain 100% "western" standard of living either, seeing that you aren't in the West. Very few people in Georgia make 1000+ euro, and they're doing OK with less. In rural Georgia you'd be living like royalty with that kind of monthly spend. It's also beautiful, and people are real nice. The only thing to watch out for is, of course, the internet.

If you're ok with Georgia, you should check out Batumi. It's a bustling coastal city that's seen impressive growth since independence. It's also pretty close to Turkey, so there are land routes to Trabzon (and flights from there to Istanbul).

Batumi is also known as Colchis, the destination for the Argonauts in Greek Mythology, so plenty of history & culture and great food.

The Grand Tour did a special driving through Georgia to Azerbaijan if you want to get a feel for what the region looks like:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6068920/

Nomadlist is often way off on their estimates. I'd suggest using it for inspiration only and then see prices on Numbeo

No one number can quantify a city. You can probably live for $1000 a month in Mnahattan if you are willing to live in a total dump.

But still the numbers are useful and mostly accurate within a range

This is a common misconception of nomadlist. The cost of living that it presents is factoring 2-3 month stays and you being a nomad tourist.

Off in one direction or just randomly?

In my experience of living in Shanghai, Nomadlist and Numbeo estimates are way too high. That's not to say that rich expats aren't actually paying those prices (someone must've entered them, right?) but if you're willing to shop around and learn the local language so you don't get ripped off like an ignorant foreigner, you should be able to get things much cheaper.

> but if you're willing to

Isn't this just capturing the difference between short(ish term vs long term relocation? Places like Nomadist are aimed at the first category, not "what's the cheapest you can live in city X", no?

I’m sure the numbers are skewed highly by expats who’s employers pay for them to live there. I still remember my parent’s rent when they lived in HK- 13k USD/mo.

What in the world? That's incredibly high!!

Not the poster you’re replying to, but it’s not atypical for expats being sent there by their company to live in luxury housing with staff etc. I think this is partly done to entice the expat to move his whole life and family for the company but also to hook the expat up with living way above the standard they could normally afford and so they’re more docile and less likely to quit or make waves.

Where do I send my CV to get that benefit?

I’m talking about multinationals sending people around the world, and at the manager level and up (not middle management)

If that’s your position, then I’d think any multinational sending you on a multi year stint abroad would offer that kind of package.

> so you don't get ripped off like an ignorant foreigner

Interesting framing

Too high. For example, for my home city there is a figure that would be the 90th percentile net salary

I always thought that's by design - that's the cost of a nomad living there for a short period of time

Since you seem to be informed here, how would one look for places like this that are explicitly not hot & humid, or nearly tropical locations? Effectively a climate and geography filter on this site with "has winters, mountains, summer highs typically < 90 degrees"

Guanajuato city, Mexico. I lived there for a while, <$1k no problem. Not humid, perfect climate. Adorable place. I ended up there because I did some analysis of climate data for all of Mexico and it came out on top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanajuato_City

Edit: I lived there 5 years ago and USD$1k per month would have been plenty, but a nomad website I just looked up lists it at $1250. I'm surprised by that, I think you would be fine. In fact I know people who live there who don't earn anything near $15k USD per year.

Expat here. Reality is that there aren't a lot of "cheap" places, easily accessible to foreigners, that meet this criteria.

Both Korea and Georgia would fit the bill here, except maybe the midsummer months, which are pretty hot & sweaty in Seoul. You may be able to take the edge off by living at higher altitude or by the sea.

Seoul is great but it has huge variatuon in weather. It's like the east coast of the US where you get a nice month and a half of spring and a nice month and a half of fall and everything else is far to one extreme

No way the estimate is real for Tbilisi. For €1047/mo you'd be living like a king there. Especially with post-Covid prices.

Seoul & Jeju are probably the most expensive you could find.

If you want a big city you can still do Busan, daegu, ulsan etc

Are foreigners really going to live on Jeju? Jeju in the winter isn't much fun...I can't imagine living on jeju. Sokcho is super underrated imo.

I had a blast in Sokcho -- could definitely spend a couple years there. To be blunt, I was bored with Jeju by day 2.

The next time I move to Korea (which I do every couple years), I'm gonna try Busan. I've visited a few times, but haven't ever lived there.

Give Busan some consideration.

Just avoid the taking the train there. [1]

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5700672/

> Basically, if you put down a huge deposit (like $90,000: 50% to 90% of the value of the property), you don't pay any monthly rent and get the entire deposit back when you move out.

That's kind of a strange system. Any idea how it evolved there? Basically sounds like the landlord has to invest the money in such a way as to get a return that would be equivalent to rent but also safe enough so that they can return the deposit. I don't think I'd want to be a landlord there.

I believe the system started when there were double digit interest rates (in the 80's?).

Now interest rates are much lower, but Koreans got used to paying $0 rent and anything above that feels like they are being ripped off.

One reason landlords like the system is because they can daisy-chain the purchase of multiple properties. They take the first cheonsae deposit and use it to purchase another property, then use the cheonsae deposit from the 2nd property to purchase a 3rd property, and so on...

Even if landlords don't receive monthly rent, they expect to earn money on the increased value of the property. Cheonsae contracts are normally 2 years, then they can ask for more deposit or sell the property for a profit.

More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeonse

> One reason landlords like the system is because they can daisy-chain the purchase of multiple properties. They take the first cheonsae deposit and use it to purchase another property, then use the cheonsae deposit from the 2nd property to purchase a 3rd property, and so on...

That sounds like it’d be a disaster during a liquidity crunch.

It becomes a too-big-to-fail system, with the government stepping in as needed (implicit subsidy).

Korea is an economic experiment of monstrous proportions in many ways. There are a lot of risks that are specific to their system buy it feel like even if the whole thing massively blew up at this point that the average Korean would be better off than if they had never taken the risks.

How even would the government step in with it being landlord to landlord like that though? It's not centralized in any way.

Buying the assets for enough to cover the landlord's debts. then liquidate the assets for market value. The government could even just hold the assets themselves.

This is the natural outcome of building an economy based on usury/interest, which is exactly what this transaction is.

Maybe I'm missing something here, and I just read the Wikipedia article you linked. If the landlord takes the cash and buys the property, then the cash is gone and there is no cash to get interest on. Does the landlord just pocket the property appreciation?

In a way yes. But its also using leverage to amplify your gains.

Say I get $90,000 to go buy a house, I spend the $90,000 and have 1 door. I get a tenant in it and they make a $90,000 down payment. I then go buy another house and get another tenant in it and they make a $90,000 down payment. I now have two houses and still have the same amount of money I started with, I can continue this cycle and as long as property appreciates I don't just get the property appreciation from one house I get it from all of the houses so (% appreciation * property value * number of properties).

Say it is a $100,000 property and it appreciates 3%. If I had just bought one house and put the money in an interest yielding savings account I would get some low % return. If I instead chained it to acquire 10 houses I would get $30,000 return, which is 30%. But if the value of the house goes down it works against me!

Obviously this ignores transaction costs, interest costs etc.

> Say I get $90,000 to go buy a house, I spend the $90,000 and have 1 door. I get a tenant in it and they make a $90,000 down payment.

Why wouldn't the tenant spend $90,000 on the house themselves, cutting out the middleman?

Korea has a housing lottery where they give you first dibs on a new apartment at an extremely discounted price with financial assistance. Due to demand, this housing is difficult to get even at full price. However this lottery is only available to first-time homeowners. So my friend chose to do cheonsae instead of outright buying a place to save his housing lottery ticket.

Usually cheonsae deposit is less than 100% of the purchase price, so it costs less. Even if the difference is small (10%), you are guarded from drops in real estate value. If you put down $90,000 deposit you should get back exactly $90,000 even if the property value dropped below that.

And perhaps cheonsae loans are easier to get than house mortgages. I'm not sure about this, but the deposit may be better collateral than the property?

This feels like it should be illegal. Just by random chance there will be a point in time where enough tenants ask their deposit back at the same time, and you enter one big economic crisis. Of course, banks also have this risk of a bank run, but the difference is that big banks are tightly regulated and have a strict reserve rate they have to abide to (usually >5%). I wouldn't trust a big population of landlords who manage their own finances, and have a big incentive to cut corners.

If anyone knows a method to short Korean housing, please let me know!

What happens if two or more tenants want to move out at the same time? With the strategy you describe the landlord only has cash for one reimbursement.

Sell both properties and realise (perhaps pre-maturely) the capital gains?

> they can daisy-chain the purchase of multiple properties. They take the first cheonsae deposit and use it to purchase another property

And then they have to return the deposit eventually... how is this different from a Ponzi scheme? :P

With a ponzi scheme, there is no underlying investment. So the pool of capital never grows.

This Korean system should work in theory. People generally don't move very frequently. As long as there's a liquid market for investments in stocks & bonds, and the housing appreciates in value over the long term, it's not a bad system.

Seems pretty favorable to the landlords too. They get $90k up front for a $100k house. Which they could invest for an 8% or so return, which, in the first year is ~$550/mo in rent, compounded each year, minus maintenance. Yield wise, $7k on a $10k investment ($100k house - $90k from renter) is fucking amazing.

The fact that is has been around for so long suggests that it works in practice too. Yeah, maybe a black swan event causes a liquidity crunch. But so long as the government steps in to provide liqudity (low interest mortgages would work), then it shouldn't hurt too bad. Worst case, foreign investors step in to buy up the real estate.

> With a ponzi scheme, there is no underlying investment. So the pool of capital never grows.

The "pool of capital" never grows here, either. Landlords get more assets (houses), but also more liabilities (deposits).

A Ponzi scheme is perfectly capable of having underlying investments, by the way. I'm pretty sure Madoff bought houses with his money, too.

> Which they could invest for an 8% or so return

Where the heck do you get an 8% return with no risk? I want in.

> The fact that is has been around for so long

How many decades did Madoff's ponzi scheme last?

You ask jokingly, but the serious answer is that there's an actual scarce asset behind it. Sort of like Bitcoin ;) Whether the scheme artificially inflates the value of the asset remains to be seen of course. I feel the fact that the contracts usually only last 2 years or less really takes the sting out of the risk of collapse, but I'm no economist. Also if it's been going on since the 80's, that means it's been going strong through 30 years of turbulent economical climates.

This reads like a Ponzi scheme, if you consider the tenants as investors.

In a country with the third highest population density in the world and a solid advanced economy? (discounting city-states and low-population states)

There are worse places to make that bet.

If everyone makes the same bet, it can still lead to disaster (real estate must rise! Let's all speculate on real estate! --> eventual disaster).

Or let's put it this way: a rational bet is something like, this thing is worth $50 now, it will be worth at least $100 later. An irrational bet is one like "this thing will be worth more over and over again!" If everyone things like that, then the thing's price will keep rising until the bubble bursts.

That sounds like the reasoning used in the US before the big 2008 housing market crash.

The US is not #3 in population density. ;)

That doesn't matter, it's just a matter of time before it crashes imo.

The fundamental reason the US housing market crashed was that mortgages were written on properties that couldn't be sustained by income.

South Korea has two characteristics that directly impact that: scarcity of land (relative to population) and a solid, world-leading economy in many high margin industries.

It's not inconceivable property with such qualities could increase in value forever, and still be properly valued.

So saying "Just like 2008 US" is a pretty pithy distillation of a number of complicated factors.

But why couldn't the renter use the deposit to buy a house instead?

It makes zero sense to me that you would have 80% or even 50% of a property’s market value and not just buy the place as opposed to letting someone else.

Do they not do home mortgages in South Korea? Are properties expected to go down in price?

Whether properties are expected to go down in price or not doesn’t change the fact that their is always a risk that property drops in price.

It would affect whether or not someone feels like buying it.

Since you seem to get the whole deposit back, it seems like it'd be preferable to rent in many situations if the landlord still assumes liabilities (repairs, disasters, etc) and the costs associated with them. If it's "free" to live there either way, I'd rather someone else cough up 10k for a new AC, heater, etc.

Why would you not want to pay more rent and invest the rest of the savings yourself? The landlord (at least in the US) almost always has to pick up the tab for all those repairs anyway.

You also get to avoid the risk of the landlord not giving you a large sum of money back.

Someone mentioned this elsewhere, but they can't. Housing in scarce and distributed via a lottery system.

Maybe buying a house would be less liquid?

Risk… you are exposed to the risk of decreasing property values if you buy.

But as a renter, you are exposed to the risk that your landlord won't have your deposit when you are ready to move out. To me, that seems like a bigger risk.

You know they at least own the house that costs more than what they owe you, so in a court you can probably regain your money

I don't know much about the system... is there an escrow service? Insurance?

Sounds like a recipe for a housing market collapse...

> That's kind of a strange system. Any idea how it evolved there? Basically sounds like the landlord has to invest the money in such a way as to get a return that would be equivalent to rent but also safe enough so that they can return the deposit. I don't think I'd want to be a landlord there.

I was thinking the same, but here's another way of framing it: they're like real estate agents [1] in the US, except that instead of keeping a 2.5%–5% commission at every sale, they keep the capital gains. They may not need to invest deposits at all to make money.

To me renting under this system doesn't seem clearly better than buying. You're paying most of the money to buy the property, but it's not an investment. You can't come out ahead. But at least there's no risk or hassle of doing property maintenance.

[edit: no, I just saw yongjik's comment: "Under the 'jeonse' system, if the landlord becomes bankrupt, the renter is suddenly out of a large portion of their total wealth, and will be evicted by the new owner - without any money to find the next place. (There are insurances to protect renters but the risk is still there.)" I don't think I'd like to rent under this system at all.]

[1] and property managers who handle repairs and such, but that's probably not how they make their money at $50/month.

I believe the system was adopted in the old days with very high interest rates (~10% was common) - landlords could easily expect to make enough return.

It's actually greatly favorable to landlords. Just think about what happens when one side is out of money. Under the monthly rent system, landlords can't get any more money until they evict the renter (which is a lot of hassle, anywhere in the world). Under the "jeonse" system, if the landlord becomes bankrupt, the renter is suddenly out of a large portion of their total wealth, and will be evicted by the new owner - without any money to find the next place.

(There are insurances to protect renters but the risk is still there.)

The nice option world be to guarantee in law that renter gets the property as debt.

Would the new landlord inherit the liabilities of the house?

Not an expert, but I think there's a good chance the renter will lose money. When this happens, the landlord usually has more debt than the house is worth, so the renter has to compete with other lenders. (There's some legal protection, but I don't think it's bulletproof.)

Seems similar to a leasehold purchase which is common in commercial real estate.

If I'm putting 90% of the value, why don't I just add another 10% and buy the property outright? Are there restrictions on who can buy a house/apartment in Korea?

You perhaps missed that you get the whole deposit back. The landlord doesn't keep it. You could buy the property outright, or you could live somewhere for essentially free, as long as you don't value the interest on that cash more than you value the place you're staying.

Giving that much money to a landlord is absolutely terrifying to me given the history of landlords I’ve had. I’d much rather own the property and deal with any transaction costs associated with selling.

Basically, nobody wants to admit that their own country's long established and respected systems are ponzi schemes.

Many South Korean landlords are underwater on a bad investment and use the next renter's deposit to pay out the last. Citation not possible.

The point of the system was to spur investment in the south korean economy.

next question: how would one go about betting on Korean residential mortgage credit spreads as an American retail investor?

Thats not the good bet - based solely on this information - the landlords would be fine on their own property, they would have lost a portion or all of a prior renters deposit in some other speculate bet instead of just letting it sit in a bank account, new renters deposits are paying for the ability of the landlord to pay the prior renters

Of course that prior speculative bet could be in mortgage(s). You would need to look at other weakness in that economy to rationalize whatever bet you want.

Still, why not pay 10% more and own the building? You could still get the money back (and hopefully more) when you sell it again.

I'd imagine transaction costs on real estate are high...maybe even approaching 10%.

Or potentially a lot less. The idea that real estate always goes up doesn't match reality.

Transaction costs, taxes, maintenance, interest opportunity cost, etc. all of the same reasons that it might be cheaper to rent in the USA than buy.

Owner might not want to sell?

Didn’t miss it, just also noted that if the landlord loses the money or goes bankrupt or just skips town, in a foreign country without strong connections and shaky command of the language, you are likely screwed.

That sounds strange, what's in it for the landlord?

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28319313

Opportunity cost. Landlord can use the money to invest elsewhere and make more than the minimum 12% APY. It is like 0% interest loan for the length of the tenant stay.

0 interest loan I guess

Interest income on the deposit.

No credit risk from the tenant.

Sounds like a too good to be true situation...

Who is responsible for repairs?

Not quite sure what the exact laws are, but generally the landlord fixes stuff. They will even replace lightbulbs, within reason. If there is a small thing I can fix on my own, I'll just do it myself.

Usually there is a monthly management fee that ranges from $50 to $100+ dollars that covers cleaning of common areas, repairs, etc.

Thank you! Now I understand rent fraud (as seen in "Stranger" https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6461346/ ). I couldn't understand how rent fraud could end up costing someone all their life savings - but now I see.

That seems like a very very good idea.

I wouldn't do it unless I had a partner who is already a citizen , but I'll definitely keep this in mind.

How much is rent if I didn't want to deposit that much ?

The general formula to convert from housing deposit to monthly rent is $10,000 deposit equals $50 monthly rent. (Until recently it was $100 rent). It's possible to find lower, but $10,000 is usually the minimum deposit.

Housing costs will vary greatly depending on location. $90,000 is in Gimpo, just outside of Seoul. Busan is probably half the cost of Seoul, and outside any major metro areas it's probably even lower.

Also even within the same real estate market prices vary greatly depending on the neighborhood, type, and size of unit. Another major factor is distance to nearest public transportation (subway).

Another thing to note is since monthly rent is usually more profitable for landowners, there is a movement away from the cheonsae system. However, I was still able to find plenty of options exactly one year ago.

12% is pretty high yield for the modern/western world. South Korea central rate is %0.75 according to Google. Where does the 11.25% come from?

That is exactly my point. There is an opportunity cost in keeping a large deposit (lost interest/investment opportunities). However that opportunity earn a certain APY in order to be a better "investment" than the housing deposit (a penny saved is a penny earned):

- $10,000 additional deposit reduces monthly rent by $50.

- 50 * 12 = 600

- 600/10,000 = 6%

The monthly rent reduction used to be $100 per $10,000. So it used to be 12%. I guess the break-even point is 6%, now...

Concrete example: I could reduce the deposit from $90,000 to $10,000. But then my rent would go from $0/month to $400/month. So by keeping a large deposit, I save $4800/year in rent.

What do you additionally save by not paying taxes on the income that you would have used to pay rent?

True~ the "pennies saved" are earned, but not taxed.

I did not consider that!

11.25% is the imputed value of $0 rent after down payment.

in crypto 12% is quite low.

Korea is something I have on my mind for so long. I would love a detailed blog post regarding your experience living in Korea as an expat with breakdown of cost and how you ended up there. Seems like an interesting journey to know about.

It's been quite an interesting journey! The original plan was to study Korean language for just a year, then I kept extending the trip...

I haven't blogged in a long time, but here are the Korea-related blog posts:

http://blog.leftium.com/2007/06/my-life-prologue.html

http://blog.leftium.com/2007/06/past-month-in-review.html

http://blog.leftium.com/2007/06/my-life-chapter-i.html

http://blog.leftium.com/2010/08/dragon-flies-and-praying-man...

http://blog.leftium.com/2010/09/how-to-eat-korean-food.html

http://blog.leftium.com/2010/10/october-update-whats-good-in...

How do you stay there? Just in an education visa?

Oh, that's one thing that might make it harder for the OP. Forgot about that. Before COVID, people used to do "visa runs" to nearby countries so they could stay more than 90 days (tourist visa).

I have an F4 visa that allows me to stay in Korea for up to 3 years, and it's simple to extend without leaving Korea. Technically I have almost all the rights as a Korean citizen except for the right to vote for president. (In practice it's more limited. For example it's nearly impossible for me to get a loan.)

With the F4 visa, I can work or not work. The F4 visa is granted to people who have relatives who are Korean citizens.

Thank you. Reading it right now.

The maths behind this is similar to UK leasehold. With a leasehold (which is a truly terrible system) you pay as if you're buying the flat, but actually you only have a lease usually with a very small annual payment and some management charges. The catch is the lease only lasts usually 99 years and for various legal reasons you have to renew it before it drops below 80 years, and that costs a bunch of money.

Leaseholders are called "homeowners" but they don't really own the home in the normal sense and are closer to long term renters in their rights.

I disagree. The crucial difference is that you don't get your money back with a UK leasehold. It's basically renting with extra steps.

A freeholder is basically renting out a house for 99 years and the leaseholder has to pay all the rent upfront (+ renewal). On the upside, if the freeholder wants to sell the house he's required to offer it to the leaseholder first.

Usually 99 years? I bought a new leasehold in 2004 with a 999 year term, and I don't think that's unusual now. The government announced plans in January that leaseholders will have the right to renew leases for a standard term of 990 years, as well as capping ground rent. So I hope the worst abuses of UK leasehold are on their way out.

A 999 year term sounds like a long time, but time flies; before you know it, 980 years would have passed, and you would be wondering why you didn't buy a freehold instead...

If property returns around 5% per year, lending $90k for a stay would be around $4.5k per year and represent perhaps a $375 monthly apartment. Given that you are not even paying fully for the apartment, this makes it possibly even more valuable. This can be considered quite decent given that there is more or less no risk involved. An index fund may generate higher returns maybe even 7% but given the low risk the system may be generous. As an institution it may of course beg other questions if the money is well invested, if it creates a bubble etc.

Housing returns:https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24112/w241... S&P : https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average...

Also as someone pointed out: money "earned" by not paying rent is untaxed.

I’m guessing this is outside of Seoul. It’s been a decade since I visited Seoul and while I remember it being surprisingly affordable, I don’t remember it being that affordable in Seoul.

I can easily imagine somewhere outside Seoul/Jeju/Busan being surprisingly affordable

Correct: I'm in Gimpo, but it's not far from Seoul. Kind of like the Seoul metro area or a suburb. I can get to Seoul by public transportation (subway/bus) within an hour. And the fare is only $2-3.

And I was a little fast and loose with the KRW-USD conversion. I opted for the simple 1USD == 1000KRW, so the actual numbers are a little higher.

I always found that system super interesting!

What would the equivalent rent have been for the place you live in for free (with 90k deposit)?

In nominal terms the S&P500 would do 10% a year or so on average. Over the past decade it's been 14.7%, so that $90k would've returned 13k a year on average.

In general I feel South Korea has been a great value for money location, if you bring external capital. If I compare it to neighbouring Japan for example, prices seem so much more affordable. Of course the working culture is not easy, but for OP it'd be a great choice.

80,000/10,000*50 = $400 rent + $10,000 deposit.

The general rule is $50/rent per $10,000 deposit, however it's up to the landlord. I think my place was actually more like $80,000 deposit + $100 rent (vs. $50). I recall the different options with rent fit the formula, but there was a big drop in rent if it was all deposit and no monthly rent. Maybe the owner preferred avoiding the hassle of collecting monthly rent (still have to collect monthly management fee, though...)

When calculating the real estate commission, the formula is used to arrive at a total value for the transaction. So the real estate broker's cut is the same whether the rent is big or small. And I think the commission is the same whether it's a rental or purchase.

I also live in Korea, but the only places I could imagine being able to survive for $600/mo would be outside major cities and eating kimbap and ramyeon for your takeout meals and living in a goshitel... no offense! Of course, if you're putting down a large deposit, then your rent could even be free.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with jeonsae unless somebody else is paying for it (parents, employer, bank), keep your money in your favorite speculative investment instead.

Interesting. So it’s like buying a place with a guaranteed buyer on the other side but no upside n the value of the house increasing. I don’t think I would want to live in that situation. It’s not like houses are that hard to sell.

Good luck with any cheonsae, you are dealing with Koreans, and there is a chance that deposit won't be there waiting for you or that company just disappearing.

I thought most landlords won't even take those deposit based deals from foreigners?

If I was going to live in a Major city anywhere,Seoul would be in the top 2 along with Tokyo

Yeah, it may be harder if you're a foreigner. I'm a foreigner and I managed to do it, though. If you have the cash I don't think landlords would care.

For me, the biggest hurdle was saving up the deposit. Koreans have easy access to cheonsae loans at 2-4% interest rates. It's very difficult for foreigners to get a loan in Korea.

edit: the break-even point is 6% APY

$10,000 deposit used to be converted to $100 rent (to get 12%). It's now only $50 rent. (Although in my case I think it still was $100/12%).

> Basically, if you put down a huge deposit (like $90,000: 50% to 90% of the value of the property), you don't pay any monthly rent and get the entire deposit back when you move out.

So you're giving them a usurious loan basically.

How is a zero interest loan usurious?

Interest doesn't have to be money, it's any benefit received for giving a loan. In this case, the benefit received is staying in the apartment unit in exchange for the loan.