Why so few home sales in Los Angeles and Orange counties?

Well, local renters enjoy the nation’s fourth-largest savings between what landlords charge and the cost of financing a house purchase.

My trusty spreadsheet reviewed a study by Zillow that estimated everyday rent prices for single-family homes compared with monthly mortgage payments, assuming 10% down. The study looked at April conditions for 50 large U.S. areas, including six California markets.

Of course, renting in the metro comprising Los Angeles and Orange counties remains a financial challenge. Leasing a single-family house ran $4,462 a month, according to Zillow’s math. That’s the second-highest cost among the 50 markets.

But buying is far more painful to the wallet. Zillow estimates buying the $966,700 typical home requires a $6,315 house payment. That’s the third-highest nationally.

Still, the rent-versus-buy math translates to a $1,853 monthly savings to the tenant, No. 4 of the 50. Yes, nearly two grand.

My spreadsheet looked at this theoretical renting advantage with a longer-term lens: Over five years, assuming that renting’s savings are cut 3% a year as the landlord raises prices. It adds up to roughly $105,000 cheaper to rent.

Now, mortgage payments and property taxes could lower a buyer’s income taxes. Of course, then there are potential increases in property taxes, insurance and homeowner association fees a buyer must account for, too.

And please do not forget the 10% down used to get a reduced mortgage payment in this calculation. That’s a severe house hunter burden that is often overlooked in rent-versus-buy math. For L.A-O.C., it’s $96,700 down.

Also, homeownership fans would say a buyer could see $154,000 of appreciation if home prices increased at a 3% a year pace in the next five years.

Yet no matter how the rent-versus-buy calculations are done, the cash-flow gap between rents and house payments helps explain the locally slow homebuying pace.

Elsewhere

In the five other California markets, the five-year savings for renters were …

San Jose: $350,000 savings (No. 1 among the 50 markets) from $4,508 rent (No. 1) versus $10,706 on house payment (No. 1).

San Francisco: $198,000 savings (No. 2) from $4,065 rent (No. 5) versus $7,564 payments (No. 2).

San Diego: $111,000 savings (No. 3) from $4,177 rent (No. 3) versus $6,133 payments (No. 4).

Los Angeles-Orange County: $105,000 savings (No. 4) from $4,462 rent (No. 2) versus $6,315 payments (No. 3).

Sacramento: $58,000 savings (No. 7) from $2,800 rent (No. 12) versus $3,833 payments (No. 9).

It’s a far different picture nationally.

A U.S. renter can expect just $5,000 savings over five years from $2,296 rent, compared with $2,388 house payments.

And it was cheaper to buy than rent in 13 of the 50 U.S. big metro areas: Indianapolis; Hartford, Connecticut; San Antonio; Buffalo, New York; Cincinnati; Cleveland; Memphis; Tampa, Florida; Houston; Pittsburgh; New Orleans; Chicago; and Miami.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com.