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
1,066 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
  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @David Nolan:

    @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!

     HOW?

    P.S. Investopedia sucks!

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

    @Account Closed Hi Bob, I am not sure about the newbie tag...been doing this a while now.

    Can you please answer my questions in my last post regarding what action would you take if you did not have the $100,000.00 cash. If you do this you may see the error of your view. IF you do not have the cash to start with, how on earth could you not be at risk? Perhaps you can educate me because I cannot see the error in that proposition.

    The error is not in deciding to use leverage, the error is in not accepting that leverage has risk associated to it.

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

    @Account Closed Hi Bob, I am not sure about the newbie tag...been doing this a while now.

    The error is not in deciding to use leverage, the error is in not accepting that leverage has risk associated to it.

     That surprises that you've been doing this awhile and do not understand leverage.  I just proved in your example that choosing leverage vs. not choosing has no more risk and possibly less.  

    Now if you are going to change YOUR statement to "If David has no money and invests at 100% LTV is he taking MORE risk than Bob who DOES THE EXACT SAME THING but has $100,000 in his pocket or pays cash!" then I'd agree that David is increasing his risk but it is NOT because of leverage, it is because he has no money! Surely you understand that.

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

    @Account Closed I am not sure how to convince you that leverage has risk because you do not seem to be prepared to look outside of your own knowledge base.

    Here is a quote from the World Bank..."Leverage allows a financial institution to increase

    the potential gains or losses on a position or investment beyond what would be possible

    through a direct investment of its own funds". Please note the word losses in the quote.

    http://www.worldbank.org/financialcrisis/pdf/levra...

    There are numerous informed sources that you could access that will have the same opinion.

    Leverage means using other people's money to potentially maximise your gains. Simply deferring a cash payment is not what I would call leverage. If you have cash and pay later that is not leverage, that is just good money management. Leverage is borrowing other people's money and investing it. Can you see that?

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

    @Account Closed I am not sure how to convince you that leverage has risk because you do not seem to be prepared to look outside of your own knowledge base.

    Here is a quote from the World Bank..."Leverage allows a financial institution to increase

    the potential gains or losses on a position or investment beyond what would be possible

    through a direct investment of its own funds". Please note the word losses in the quote.

    http://www.worldbank.org/financialcrisis/pdf/levra...

    There are numerous informed sources that you could access that will have the same opinion.

    Leverage means using other people's money to potentially maximise your gains. Simply deferring a cash payment is not what I would call leverage. If you have cash and pay later that is not leverage, that is just good money management. Leverage is borrowing other people's money and investing it. Can you see that?

     David, it's about the NUMBERS.  Show me the numbers.  In your example I used OPM and came out the EXACT same as you!  Can you see that?  I can quote uninformed sources same as you but it really is in the NUMBERS.

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

    Can you please answer my questions in my last post regarding what action would you take if you did not have the $100,000.00 cash.  

    Um....the same as you if you also did not have $100,000 cash.  Now will you answer MY question of WHY you have to have $100,000 MORE than me for your statement to make any sense?

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

    @Account Closed Bob, if you had no cash and bought the same property with 100% mortgage then the scenario I posted would be true. you would not only lose your $50,000.00 but also the ongoing interest costs of paying off your $100,000.00 mortgage. Can you see that? There are the numbers.

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

    @Account Closed I think you are comparing me to you as the investor. I am asking a question that could apply to any investor. If they had no money and borrowed 100% would they be at risk? i.e. they are leveraged to the max and is it risky? You even said so yourself in a  previous post. It is not because they have no money, it is because they are so highly leveraged.

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

    @Account Closed Bob, if you had no cash and bought the same property with 100% mortgage then the scenario I posted would be true. you would not only lose your $50,000.00 but also the ongoing interest costs of paying off your $100,000.00 mortgage. Can you see that? There are the numbers.

     And again, THOSE numbers ONLY work if I start out with $100,000 less than you.  That makes no sense.

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

    @Account Closed I think you are comparing me to you as the investor. I am asking a question that could apply to any investor. If they had no money and borrowed 100% would they be at risk? i.e. they are leveraged to the max and is it risky? You even said so yourself in a  previous post. It is not because they have no money, it is because they are so highly leveraged.

     NO!  You stated above "If they had no money and borrowed 100% would they be at risk?  See, if you change that to "if they had billions and borrowed 100% would they be at risk?"  The risk is NOT THE LEVERAGE, it is having no money.

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

    @Account Closed Bob,       if you had no cash          and bought the same property with 100% mortgage then the scenario I posted would be true. you would not only lose your $50,000.00 but also the ongoing interest costs of paying off your $100,000.00 mortgage. Can you see that? There are the numbers.

     Again, it's not the leverage.

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

    @Account Closed Sorry I could not teach you Bob. Perhaps someone else can. Your definition of leverage and mine appear to be totally different.

    Happy investing!

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

    Or, if David had no money and paid cash....Wait, David has no money so he can't do anything. David is not an investor.   Sucks to be David.

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

    @Account Closed LOL...

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

    David, you had me at L.

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

    @Account Closed Cheers.

    Great chatting with you.

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

    No arguement, there is risk in leverage...with risk comes reward.  There is no free lunch.

    What counteracts risk?  Ask the banks...they are partners in the setup.  They seem to think 25% equity and reserves. 

    Rewards: if the property appreciates, you get 100% of the appreciation even though you really own 25% and the bank owns 75%.  Agreed, you take 100% of  losses too, but the odds of losing decrease each year as you build equity.  Inflation raises equity too.  And the US popluation grows evry year. 

     Buy where the US population wants to live (I only buy if I would live there)) 25% down, have savings....Not so risky.

  • Investor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2015 · 6k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    @David Nolan It was very good (and educational) to see you TRYING to get @Account Closed to understand your basics, but I have seen that Bob often appears to be from a different planet, especially when he asked the question "How then do you explain the wide range of cap rates 4%-16% when the interest rates are basically the same?", for which answer is patently obvious and should never have needed to be asked (and was subsequently duly ignored)! Cheers...

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

    @Account Closed David had no luck getting the point about leverage across, even though he went as far as quoting the World Bank, so I have no real expectation that these points will persuade you but it doesn't hurt to try!  Truthfully, I'm surprised an investor would even argue about this point.

    Numerically - 

    You buy a $100,000 property. 

    Option A - No Leverage.  The market moves 10% down (it moved 40% or so in America in the crisis).  You lose $10,000, AKA experience a 10% loss on the capital you put forth.

    Option B - Same property but this time you leverage $90,000 of its cost and only contribute $10,000 down.  Same property, as I said, so its subject to the same market forces at Option A and the market falls 10%.  You lose $10,000, AKA experience a 100% loss on the capital you put forth.

    100% > 10% = risk amplified by leverage.

    Option C (bonus option) - You have $100,000 to invest but buying in cash doesnt suit your style because leverage, in your mind, is 'riskless'.  So you basically do Option B on 10 different properties all at once.  Again, market moves 10% against you and poof, $100k, or 100% of your capital, gone.  Now scale it, lets say you did Option C but had $1,000,000 in cash so you bought them all unlevered.  Again, this scenario would have resulted in a 10% loss of your capital.

    In Practice - 

    How often, during the crash, did you hear about assets being foreclosed for being under leveraged?  

    If leverage isn't risky, why won't banks finance 100% of any property without a second thought?

    If leverage isn't risky explain PMI.

    I assume you agree with the statement 'Higher risk merits higher reward'?  Assuming that, why does a first mortgage with lower leverage limitations accept a lower return on their money than investors or partners that are willing to fund in positions second to said mortgage?  A higher leverage position puts the mezzanine financier in a place of greater risk so a greater return is demanded.  

    You'd be wise to think about much of what @David Nolan said.  I use leverage to invest as well, though I am borderline a 'newbie' and not scared to admit it, but when I use leverage I do so with a scalpel as opposed to a chainsaw, because I respect its risks.

    A final thought about 'Higher risks merits higher rewards'.  If you dont believe that statement then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of investing basics.  If you do believe that, on the other hand, yet continue to believe that leverage produces higher rewards with no commensurate shift in risk, then you are contradicting yourself.

  • Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    11y

    @Ron Thomas

    Exactly! However, there are caveats:

    1. RE is an inflation-protected security. We don't need it to outpace inflation - just to appreciate in prices inversely proportionally to devaluation of currency. It does that, at least if you've bought the right thing - this is key! Because, as you say, people have to choose to pay for what you have relative to currency status, and that's not a guarantee :)

    2. Income-producing RE deflects responsibility for outpacing inflation away from us and onto our tenants...

    3. Buying with $0 down helps as well :)

    4. Forced appreciation takes care of the rest!

    Thoughts?

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

    @David Nolan It was very good (and educational) to see you TRYING to get @Account Closed to understand your basics, but I have seen that Bob often appears to be from a different planet, especially when he asked the question "How then do you explain the wide range of cap rates 4%-16% when the interest rates are basically the same?", for which answer is patently obvious and should never have needed to be asked (and was subsequently duly ignored)! Cheers...

     Would you please post the obvious answer?  

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

    @Account Closed David had no luck getting the point about leverage across, even though he went as far as quoting the World Bank, so I have no real expectation that these points will persuade you but it doesn't hurt to try!  Truthfully, I'm surprised an investor would even argue about this point.

    Numerically - 

    You buy a $100,000 property. 

    Option A - No Leverage.  The market moves 10% down (it moved 40% or so in America in the crisis).  You lose $10,000, AKA experience a 10% loss on the capital you put forth.

    Option B - Same property but this time you leverage $90,000 of its cost and only contribute $10,000 down.  Same property, as I said, so its subject to the same market forces at Option A and the market falls 10%.  You lose $10,000, AKA experience a 100% loss on the capital you put forth.

    100% > 10% = risk amplified by leverage.

    Option C (bonus option) - You have $100,000 to invest but buying in cash doesnt suit your style because leverage, in your mind, is 'riskless'.  So you basically do Option B on 10 different properties all at once.  Again, market moves 10% against you and poof, $100k, or 100% of your capital, gone.  Now scale it, lets say you did Option C but had $1,000,000 in cash so you bought them all unlevered.  Again, this scenario would have resulted in a 10% loss of your capital.

    In Practice - 

    How often, during the crash, did you hear about assets being foreclosed for being under leveraged?  

    If leverage isn't risky, why won't banks finance 100% of any property without a second thought?

    If leverage isn't risky explain PMI.

    I assume you agree with the statement 'Higher risk merits higher reward'?  Assuming that, why does a first mortgage with lower leverage limitations accept a lower return on their money than investors or partners that are willing to fund in positions second to said mortgage?  A higher leverage position puts the mezzanine financier in a place of greater risk so a greater return is demanded.  

    You'd be wise to think about much of what @David Nolan said.  I use leverage to invest as well, though I am borderline a 'newbie' and not scared to admit it, but when I use leverage I do so with a scalpel as opposed to a chainsaw, because I respect its risks.

    A final thought about 'Higher risks merits higher rewards'.  If you dont believe that statement then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of investing basics.  If you do believe that, on the other hand, yet continue to believe that leverage produces higher rewards with no commensurate shift in risk, then you are contradicting yourself.

     @Ron Thomas   You are either 100% wrong or 110% wrong!   

    Option A  You said "You lose $10,000"

    Option B You said "You lose $10,000"

    Option A uses no leverage and loses $10,000.

    Option B uses 90% LTV leverage and loses $10,000!

    THE EXACT SAME RESULT and you are still confused.  

    Reminds me of the puzzle of three guys paying $10 and then getting refunded $1 each.  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_riddle

    By crackie, it pays to have age and experience on your side.   Thank heavens I don't use it for evil!       Like some Gurus.    Bwahahahahaha!

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

    @Account Closed For your sake, I hope you are just messing with everyone to entertain yourself.  Good luck with things.

  • Investor · Paradise Valley, AZ · Member since 2012 · 366 posts · 214 votes
    11y

    Hate to jump in late to this thread but my experience with @Account Closed is that not only is he unteachable but he likes to pontificate on subjects that he CLEARLY knows nothing about.  My advice would be to ignore him.

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

    @Account Closed For your sake, I hope you are just messing with everyone to entertain yourself.  Good luck with things.

    I'm here to educate the younguns. Them that will listen. Then they won't need no luck to be successful in REI.

    Just for you.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeb...

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