House prices will never outpace inflation over time, its impossible.

House prices will never outpace inflation over time, its impossible.

Real Estate Investor · Wyandotte, MI · Member since 2014 · 66 posts · 41 votes

Let me start by qualifying the title of this post with a couple statements. First, I’m not talking about your neighborhood specifically, although given a long enough period the title is likely to be very close to applicable there as well, if not spot on.

Second, what I am talking about is national averages because that is how inflation is normally measured. You may say ‘NYC housing prices have soared over inflation with time!’, to which I would reply, ‘Yes, but have they soared over NYC inflation with time? Also, in NYC’s case, is it caused by market interference such as government imposed price restrictions?’ (A topic for another post)

What I seek to explain is a phenomenon central to, but rarely understood by, beginning real estate investors. House prices are simply a reflection of what people are willing and able to pay to live in a given area. Nothing more. Just like the cost of a bottle of Coke, or an Ipad, or a lap dance are real-time reflections of what the market will support for said product or service.

My quick Google search just now turned up the number of 26.88% as the average amount total pre-tax income that the average American family spent on housing in 2013. Depending on how you calculate it, this number could move up or down a bit but, for argument’s sake, lets assume it’s truth as is. The only possible way national housing price averages can or would diverge from inflation is A) a market correction or B) if the percent of total income people were willing/able to allocate toward their housing expense changed across the board. Ill address A) later in the article but for now lets focus on B).

Our Federal Reserve Bank aims for a 2% rate of inflation. Lets assume they are on track and achieving this goal of 2% consistently. Further, lets assume that average wages are rising at that same 2%. So basically, prices rise at the same pace as incomes so things may appear more expensive BUT the average item actually requires no larger percentage of your pool of money from which to pay. Finally, lets assume that I’m wrong and housing prices are actually beating inflation by a measly 1%, rising by 3% per year on average over time. What effect do you suppose this would have on the percentage of total income each family must spend on housing over time? Lets run some numbers.

My same Google search turned up these numbers for 2013. Average before tax family income was $63,784 and the average amount spent on housing was $17,148. From these numbers I derived the 26.88% figure mentioned earlier. If you assume that house prices will consistently rise by 3%, and wages/inflation by 2%, then with about 5 minutes and an excel spreadsheet you can see that in or around August of the year 2147 housing will cost 100% of the average family’s pretax income. But most real estate investors I know would be disgusted with a return that only beats inflation by 1% on average. If you assume that the Fed’s goal of 2% is still being achieved, however housing values are growing by 5% on average with time, a mere 3% above inflation, then you can pretty quickly figure out that in or around April of 2058 house prices would effectively eat up 100% of the average American family’s pre-tax income. Folks, April of 2058 is not all that far away.

Of course this would never happen, people have to pay taxes and eat food and buy diapers and indulge in the occasional lap dance, among other things. So if you observe housing prices outpacing wage growth with time know that something just isn’t right.

Fake increases in value because of lending ‘innovations’ allowed people to buy more house with less money out of pocket leading up to 2008. Our financial system created a fake disconnect between value and the price people had to pay for that value. What was the result? I seem to remember something about falling house prices recently…

Housing costs, cannot, continually occupy a growing percent of total wages on average. To operate under this premise, as a real estate investor, is to think the odds at a slot machine are in your favor. Its simply wrong. In fact, you should probably choose the later, slot machines rarely eat up 100K+ at a time.

As for A) above, this is where talented real estate investors live, and many untalented ones accidentally find themselves profiting in. Real estate exists in a very, very complex world with any large number of factors affecting possible investment outcomes. Additionally, the market is rarely, perhaps never, a perfect representation of its underlying fundamentals. In the Detroit area right now lots houses are failing to close at prices agreed to by both the buyers and the sellers because the appraisals are coming back low. These low appraisals are based on other recent sales with the same problem. Hence, the observed market price of houses is suppressed and the only way to fix it is to have a disproportionally large number of buyers come out of pocket with extra cash at closing, not likely in the short term. Across American banks would love to lend more money to homeowners or potential buyers but face having to keep the loans on their books if they don’t conform to stringent standards for reselling to Fannie or Freddie. Banks don’t like this so demand for capital is unmet due to a countercyclical regulatory hangover from the 2008 crisis. Being able to consistently generate above average returns in real estate, especially on a larger scale, takes the ability to spot markets that are out of sync and exploit them. This, people, takes homework, hard work, and talent.

Quitting your job and making millions in real estate is possible, not probable. Lots of people ‘in real estate’ may tell you otherwise. I’d contend that most of them are actually ‘in marketing’ and real estate is simply the seasoning they put on the crap they feed you. Like being good at anything else in life, you can do this, but its not easy.

So back to the title of the article and the main point behind it.  If you buy for appreciation only and disregard cash flow, you had better know exactly what you are doing. Buying for appreciation is highly speculative, capital intensive and its outcome is anything but guaranteed. Realize the driver of residential real estate prices is jobs and act accordingly. Don’t lie to your self and assume that house prices can increase at an increasing rate, or even consistently at an unreasonably high rate over time. Know that you CAN make money in real estate, but beware that its not as easy as many gurus may tell you.

12Reply
1,158 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · Singapore · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes
11y

If your head is in boiling water and your feet are in ice, on average you should feel just fine. Your logic is based on averages which are totally meaningless. No investor buys the entire US housing market. There is no such thing. 

See this reply in the discussion

206 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Ron Thomas Hi Ron, sorry for the second post. I just worked out how to actually notify someone that I have replied. Cheers

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/201504...

    Housing is local.  

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    On average this is historically correct. Even Schiller of Case Schiller says that you should rent and put your money into the stock market if you are looking at beating the averages. Many areas if not most will not beat inflation overtime. That is always why one might hear the location, location, location mantra almost everywhere but on BP. Many many homes are not worth more than they were originally sold for adjusting for inflation. This is the norm. Leveraging does not make this fact magically dissappear.

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Matt R. Hi Matt

    I agree that many areas will not perform as well as one might hope but a simple statement like..."that you should rent and put your money into the stock market if you are looking at beating the averages." is very dangerous for the unskilled investor to follow. How many companies over the past 10 years that were once booming on the stock market no longer even exist? How many of the top 500 companies of ten years ago don't even make the list today? If you are going to talk about inflation beating assets then it would be prudent to perhaps talk about the fact that the poorly chosen property, that has not kept up with inflation is more than likely still standing and offering some value. What does an investor do when the company they bought shares in no longer even exists?

    Investments into any form of asset requires the same amount of due diligence and application of skill no matter what the asset class, property, shares, cash, bonds whatever it may be. BP as a forum offers a broad range of knowledge for people to learn about the market, the types of products and the environment under which deals can be made. It is up to the individual to do their homework and hopefully take advice from more learned investors before investing their money. Inflation is a complicated subject to deal with for even the most educated investors.

    Every commentator of investment products has an agenda and that agenda is delivered to suit their needs. Stock market exponents will advocate investment sin stocks, Realtors will advocate investment in real estate etc. All will then provide evidence to confirm their position is the correct one. However, I am not convinced that they are all easy to understand. For example, here is a quote from the

    S&PDowJonesIndices: S&P/Case-ShillerHomePriceIndicesMethodology, Feb 2105...The indices measure changes in housing market prices given a constant level of quality. Changes in the types and sizes of houses or changes in the physical characteristics of houses are specifically excluded from the calculations to avoid incorrectly affecting the index value.". Does this mean that hosues that have been modified, i.e. refurbed, don't count in the analysis? If so, how can a market that is changing, say an older market that is being rejuvenated be ignored?

    These are just comments for opinion. I would be really interested to hear your thoughts. Whilst I am new to the market in the USA I am not new to investment fundamentals and would like to think that the people on BP are either hear to learn or hear to help those who want to learn as you and I appear to be.

    Happy investing!

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Account Closed hi Bob, you are right..."housing is local"" but investing is universal! The trick is to find the markets that can make you money.

    Happy investing!

  • Rental Property Investor · Gambrills, MD · Member since 2014 · 372 posts · 88 votes
    11y
    A couple things... I didn't see anyone mention that wage growth does not historically equal inflation. It has lately (or has even been lower), but longer term trends have wage growth outpacing CPI. Second, as a buy and hold investor, appreciation is secondary to cash flow. I don't need the house to appreciate at a high rate, because I am gaining equity using other people's money and earning income that outpaces other returns.
  • Real Estate Investor · Wyandotte, MI · Member since 2014 · 66 posts · 41 votes
    11y

    @Stephen Chittenden Good point about wage growth not necessarily mirroring inflation

  • Real Estate Investor · Williamson County, TX · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 961 votes
    11y

    Your returns are amplified by leverage, a good location beats inflation in a growing area and depreciating on taxes and never selling is icing on the cake (although your property WILL depreciate).

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @David Nolan:

    @Account Closed hi Bob, you are right..."housing is local"" but investing is universal! The trick is to find the markets that can make you money.

    Happy investing!

    I agree David most info I see is biased. The thing with Schiller is he is just a professor at Harvard and has no dog in this hunt. It could be unfair to compare an average sfh rental to stocks. One was designed to be lived in and the other designed for investor returns. Perhaps more dangerous is thinking an average REI location is going to beat the top 500 capitalized public companies and or have a better shot at beating inflation.

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Stephen Chittenden @Ron Thomas Hi Guys

    Wage growth is a contributor to inflation. increased wages leads to increased prices. The balance is very difficult to measure as they do not appear in real time. Wages go up before the subsequent rise in prices follow. Employers will pass on the increased labour costs at a  later date.

    Rather than focus on inflation, which is the effect of our dollar being worth less, instead focus on securing ever increasing amounts of revenue so that you have more dollars with which to buy things, even at an inflated price. The key to wealth creation is making more money than you spend and investing those surplus funds to make even more money. Unfortunately for many the concept of saving and investing comes after spending, but there is usually no money left to save or invest because it all got spent. Lifestyle choices rule. Making money is a lifestyle choice!

  • Rental Property Investor · Gambrills, MD · Member since 2014 · 372 posts · 88 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @David Nolan:

    @Stephen Chittenden @Ron Thomas Hi Guys

    Wage growth is a contributor to inflation. increased wages leads to increased prices. The balance is very difficult to measure as they do not appear in real time. Wages go up before the subsequent rise in prices follow. Employers will pass on the increased labour costs at a  later date.

     Wage growth is s contributor to inflation, but productivity gains can drive wage growth without corresponding inflation. 

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Marian Smith

    Hi Marian, leverage certainly can influence yields, but it can and does also magnify losses. It is wise to be careful with leverage because when things go wrong, and they often do in property, you can lose all your hard earned equity. Leverage is both a positive driver and a driver of negative reactions. Highly leveraged people tend to be forced to sell in falling markets to stop the losses which in turn drives prices lower by over supplying the market. Choosing when to sell and being forced to sell are two totally different things.

    Unfortunately depreciation does not make you wealthy either. depreciating means the useful life of the asset is diminishing. At some point in time it will have no more usefulness and will need replacing. The funds the tax department allow us to claim for depreciation is to allow us to replace the item at that later date.

    The only thing that increases in real value in real estate is land because it is the limited resource. Land does not depreciate in value as such. It may fluctuate with markets but it does not depreciate. Unless of course it is rezoned to a lesser value use.

    Investing in assets with a view to simply holding them forever is a common practice with many investors, however, I would suggest that at some time in the future, especially with rental properties, you are going to be required to invest more money to keep the property livable. These investment funds are now committed to that property, regardless of whether it is the bets use of those funds at that time or not. There may be a better market to invest in, but unfortunately for many their repairs needed on their investment property robs them of the capital to invest elsewhere. Is this wise investing? The real cost of long term holding can only be calculated once the property has been sold because the illusion of depreciation making you money is just that, an illusion.

  • Real Estate Investor · Wyandotte, MI · Member since 2014 · 66 posts · 41 votes
    11y

    Good post @David Nolan!  

    Everyone thats read a book understands that Price=NOI/Cap Rate

    Dare I say that I think very few people understand that what that equation really means is that the present value of a given stream of infinite cashflows = that cashflow divided by the current rate of interest.  That was one of the few great points I picked up from what you wrote.  

    Another is the point about leverage and the magnification of losses.  It seems like too often people think 'bigger return, great!'.  I think 'bigger return, great!....but what is the risk that merits this return and can I mitigate it?'.  Knowledge seems to be the one thing that actually mitigates risk.

    Land being in virtual constant supply, with the exception of maybe urban sprawl, is another great point.  Depreciation being a legitimate expense and not just a tax benefit, and what I inferred as the normally underfunded cap ex line item is yet another great point. 

    Are you a real estate fund manager in Australia?

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:

    Good post @David Nolan!  

    Everyone thats read a book understands that Price=NOI/Cap Rate

    Dare I say that I think very few people understand that what that equation really means is that the present value of a given stream of infinite cashflows = that cashflow divided by the current rate of interest.  That was one of the few great points I picked up from what you wrote.  


    How then do you explain the wide range of cap rates 4%-16% when the interest rates are basically the same?

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:

    The point about leverage and the magnification of losses.  It seems like too often people think 'bigger return, great!'.  I think 'bigger return, great!....but what is the risk that merits this return and can I mitigate it?'.   

    Leverage does NOT magnify losses. In fact it may well lessen them. If I won a property with a 0% down VA loan vs 100% paid off and it is destroyed by an uninsurable event who has the bigger loss?..or is it the same? The leverage status of a single asset has nothing to do with magnification of loss.

  • Real Estate Investor · Williamson County, TX · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 961 votes
    11y

    David Nolan aka Debbie Downer.

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Ron Thomas Hi Ron

    I am a not a real estate fund manager but an individual professional property investor who invests their own money. I also work for some clients and do joint ventures where applicable. After more than 30 years of investing and working in the financial services arena I have discovered a few things that I employ when I do deals.

    I am at present looking at starting a business in the USA using my skills and experience but first I need to learn a whole lot more about how the USA market works. Whilst investment fundamentals and economic theories work the same in the USA as they do here in Australia the real state markets are totally different. One good example is the return on investment properties here in Australia for rental income are around 4% per annum gross. Not much at all, so it pays to learn how to make money in different ways.

    One of the reasons I am on BP is to learn how your market works. the other reason is to hopefully find people who are like minded that I may one day do some deals with. In order to do this I feel that I should give back where I can. Any experience I may have that can be of benefit to others is an experience I am happy to share, so thank you for engaging me in this discussion.

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Marian Smith Hi Marian, thanks for the tag. Perhaps David the Downer is better given my sex! 

    On a more serious note, I am actually an aggressive investor in the property market. I just have a high degree of respect for leveraging assets. If you look at the effects of leverage during times of economic contraction you would see that those people who are leveraged the most suffer first for a whole range of reasons. 

    One of my favourite strategies is using options to trade properties where I can. This allows me to control properties for $1.00 and make thousands. This is massive leverage, but it is not risky because I only use call options which give me the right to buy but not the obligation. If I don't on-sell I only lose $1.00, if I sell I make money.

    If, on the other hand I buy a property with say 5% down and the market moves 6% down I have in effect not only lost my equity, my 5%, but I have also now got a negative equity position. I have also lost the ability for my money to be earning me money in some other form of investment, say safely in the bank. I am now going backwards in creating wealth by the loss of earning power. To think that markets don't go down is naive at best and foolish at worst. Your equity invested is only one of the risks you take against the market moving in one direction or another. Understanding markets before investing in them and the associated risks involved does not make one a downer, more an astute investor I would think.

    If you believe that leverage has no down side I would suggest further investigation into the effects of leverage or gearing in investments. It might help save you some future heartache. These investment fundamentals apply to all investment types, not just property

    Happy investing!

    David the Educator...maybe not...lol.

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @David Nolan:

    If you believe that leverage has no down side I would suggest further investigation into the effects of leverage or gearing in investments. It might help save you some future heartache. These investment fundamentals apply to all investment types, not just property

    Happy investing!

    David the Educator...maybe not...lol.

    I don't believe leverage has a down side.  Please educate me. 

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Account Closed Hi Bob

    I will try to educate you if I can. Assume you borrow 100% of your purchase from the bank, or a vendor, and you are totally responsible for the money to be repaid to the lender no matter what. In other words, you cannot walk away from the debt if it does not work out for you. Alternatively, as you posted earlier, another person bought a property outright with no debt, so no leverage at all and the property is destroyed with no insurance to protect your losses.

    Let's assume that the property is a single dwelling on a residential block of land.

    The loan repayments on your loan are charged at say 5% per annum, or $100,000.00 x .05 = $5,000.00 per annum.

    The rental income from the property is equal to your interest cost of $5,000.00 per annum.

    Now the property is destroyed and not insured. All that is left is the land, no building.

    You have a debt of $100,000.00 with an asset value equal to the land value alone, let's say the land is worth $50,000.00. This means you have an asset worth $50,000.00, a liability of $100,000.00 and a negative cash flow of $5,000.00 per annum interest cost with no income from the asset. Each and every month you are now increasing your loss by the interest payments you are making!

    One other effect of this negative equity situation is that you will have reduced your ability to borrow to rebuild the building due to the existing debt and your need to service that debt. The real cost of this is difficult if not impossible to calculate. Clearly the debt on the property that exists would no doubt remove the property from being acceptable security to a lender to fund another building. You would need to use other assets to afford the building of a new dwelling. The negative effects could be long lasting.

    Alternatively, the person who owns said property outright, who also suffers the same catastrophe as you did, now finds themselves with an asset of only $50,000.00, being the land value, but with no income. However, they also have no loan to repay. Their loss is now isolated from future losses by their equity position. Your loss is ongoing until such time as you repay the loan to the original lender.

    The outright owner could possibly go to a lender to borrow against their unencumbered land to build a new dwelling and start receiving an income again.Whereas you would be left with an asset with minus equity, eating your money in interest costs with little opportunity of turning it around.

    In summary: Your high leverage could have cost you, in this example, loss of earning power, loss of borrowing power for future deals, an ongoing liability with no asset to back it, a negative entry onto your balance sheet, the loss of future income generating potential and the list goes on. This does not take into consideration the emotional effects losing money has on us. Stress, anxiety, loss of confidence etc are all real costs of losing money for most people. These are all real risks of leverage. All investments have risk and the risk is not only measured in cash. as @Ron Thomassaid in one of his posts he looks to mitigate risk. This is one of the areas where you would be wise to mitigate your risk.

    Bob, there are other ways I could possibly demonstrate this to you, but I trust this simple view will encourage you to learn more about leverage and how to use it wisely, but above all, RESPECT it. I hope this has been of help to you.

    Happy investing!

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Bob and David have $100,000 properties that are destroyed and now are worth $50,000.  

    David does not have the $100,000 he paid for the property.

    Bob has the $100,000 plus a $100,000 mortgage.

    Bob uses the $100,000 to pay the mortgage and is left with a $50,000 property.

    David has a $50,000 property.

    Bob and David are in equal positions.

    Leverage of the asset had no effect.

    Anyone?  Bueller?

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Now in a non recourse state....

    Bob could walk away from the property with his $100,000 and have $50,000 more than David.

    Sucks to be David.

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Account Closed Hi Bob, you are correct in as much as we would have the same potential net position if you had the cash to buy at the beginning, which you did not mention in your original post. This still has conditions around it to mitigate the risk. However, if you did not have the cash at the outset then would leverage be risky? Would leverage have a down side? Many people on this site and in other places are looking to highly gear/leverage their investments without having cash to back them up. Are you suggesting that they are at no risk of a downside? Imagine, in the example I gave that you had no cash. Would you say that is risky? Would you do a deal like that without cash to back you up?

    In Australia we do not have non recourse loans so you may be right...it could suck to be David...lol. But taking on leverage without understanding the risks involved could make for a poorer investor and it would be good to be David, because he wouldn't.

  • Professional Property Investor · Brisbane, Queensland · Member since 2015 · 165 posts · 160 votes
    11y

    @Account Closed Hi Bob

    Here is a quote from Investopedia (investopedia.com)

    ..."If an investor uses leverage to make an investment and the investment moves against the investor, his or her loss is much greater than it would've been if the investment had not been leveraged - leverage magnifies both gains and losses"

    Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/leverage.asp#ixzz3XvLbvHGp
    Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter
    Worth a read.
    Happy investing!
  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @David Nolan:

    @Account Closed Hi Bob, you are correct in as much as we would have the same potential net position if you had the cash to buy at the beginning,   Imagine, in the example I gave that you had no cash. Would you say that is risky? Would you do a deal like that without cash to back you up?

    @David Nolan  You are making the classic newbie mistake.  The decision is not Bob v. David investing.  It is Bob deciding to use leverage and David NOT using leverage.  We start EQUAL and make our decisions.   Why do I have to have $100,000 less than you for your statement to be correct?   See the error?  

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.