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
961 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
  • Consultant · Oklahoma City, OK · Member since 2015 · 122 posts · 34 votes
    11y

    @Ron Thomas @Account Closed 

    I think you are both right, and I think you are saying the same thing in 2 different ways.

    @Account Closed Commented that on an individual deal, leveraging an asset doesn't change your risk much. That is to say, if I have a $100k asset and the market moves 10%, I have lost the same amount of equity whether the property was financed or whether I own it free and clear.

    @Ron Thomas Comments that if you use leverage to buy more assets than you would have bought in cash, that a 10% move in the market now applies to a larger basis.

    Sorry if I have misstated your opinions in any way, but I think you are both right.

    I'll also throw in my 2 cents about the original premise about housing price vs inflation--I think the general idea is right, but maybe a better comparison would be that housing prices shouldn't outpace growth in the Willing Buying Power of buyers.

    I just made up a term so I'll define it:

    Willing Buying Power is the product of =    (Wages) * (Portion of Wages People are willing to spend on housing)

    So yes, housing price growth could theoretically sustainably outpace inflation a little, but it can only sustainably outpace the wages of people who are buying the houses if those people become willing to spend a larger % of their wages on housing.

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

    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.

    Them that will listen.

    Sigh.

  • Investor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2015 · 6k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    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?  

    Bob, I want to say: NO! But instead, I will give you a clue: Given that interest rates are basically the same, what is the OTHER variable in the equation? (hint: something to do with cash-flow, and the fact that different properties, and/or different locations, can have VERY different CoC returns)! Why did I bother?...

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

    Bob, I want to say: NO! But instead, I will give you a clue:

    Didn't ask for a clue.  I want the patently obvious answer? Geez, why do I bother?  Wait, are you teasing me like a Guru?  How much do I have to pay to get "the secret"?

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

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

    I'm too dumb to have an opinion on this, but it appears that Warren Buffett disagrees with you:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/0...

    I guess it's possible that you know more than Warren Buffett...

  • Investor · New York City, NY · Member since 2015 · 808 posts · 417 votes
    11y

    @Ron Thomas

    and @Account Closed

    I once had a partner named Mr. Market who was my partner in a business. Without fail, Mr. Market appeared daily and named a price to either buy my shares or sell his to me. Even though my business was fairly stable the quotations varied widely day by day depending on Mr. Market’s mood. At times he felt euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he named a very high buy-sell price because he fears that I would snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he was depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he was scared that I would unload my interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn't mind being ignored and so every day he comes back with a new offer until one day in a fit of euphoria he offered a price that was too high to ignore.

    Leverage only matters if you buy something that doesn't support the price you paid, are speculating (and therefore are at the whims of Mr Market), are overextended or you have to sell.

    If one does not have a need to sell and does not overextend themselves I can't see how it hurts as long as we are talking about RE leverage and not personal leverage (i.e. you still have personal funds for reserves). 

  • Investor · New York City, NY · Member since 2015 · 808 posts · 417 votes
    11y

    @J Scott

    We both posted a Buffett reference at the same time kind of ironic.

    Buffett is fascinating to watch not just because a lot of what he says is so spot on and seemingly simple but also because he a lot of times goes outside those lines he sets out. In this case he has used leverage in numerous cases including his insurance company (financing your investments with float is leverage though very low cost leverage), options and more. He is definitely against personal leverage and people overextending themselves as well as leveraging things one does not understand but I doubt he is against leverage as a whole.  

  • Investor · New York City, NY · Member since 2015 · 808 posts · 417 votes
    11y

    This study is a good reference to the topic:

    http://www.econ.yale.edu/~af227/pdf/Buffett%27s%20...

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @J Scott:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

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

    I'm too dumb to have an opinion on this, but it appears that Warren Buffett disagrees with you:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/0...

    I guess it's possible that you know more than Warren Buffett...

     Oh J Scott, you and the writer of that article are totally misrepresenting what Warren and I are saying.  He was quoted,  "But leverage is addictive."  See, it is the addiction, NOT the leverage that is the problem.  

    It's like cocaine,  Warren and I can afford to take a toot every now and then because we have the resources and have the life skills to not end up smoking ten rocks a day and breaking into the kids piggy bank to pay for the addiction.  Yes, you young inexperienced pups need to be wary of the addiction, not the leverage.

  • Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2009 · 230 posts · 138 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    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. 

     LOL, awesome analogy! :)

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

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

    I'm too dumb to have an opinion on this, but it appears that Warren Buffett disagrees with you:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/0...

    I guess it's possible that you know more than Warren Buffett...

     Oh J Scott, you and the writer of that article are totally misrepresenting what Warren and I are saying.  He was quoted,  "But leverage is addictive."  See, it is the addiction, NOT the leverage that is the problem.  

    Wait, if there's "no down side" (your words), what's wrong with addiction?  Kinda like my addiction to breathing -- there no down side, so I don't plan to stop doing it anytime soon...

    But wait, this was part of Buffett's quote (you left this out):

    That almost sounds like Buffett is saying that leverage incurs risk.  Which is definitely the opposite of "no down side" (again, your words).

    So, which is it?  No down side whatsoever?  Or risk, "even when it is employed by very smart people?"

    I'm so confused!  I wish I knew who was more knowledgeable about business stuff -- Bob or Warren!?!?

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y

    Wait!  I just dug up another Buffett quote:

    Bob - you really need to set this Buffett guy straight...he seems to think you're wrong!!!

  • Specialist · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    All valid points from both sides of the argument. However, leveraged ETFs being a relatively new concept, I've not sure can be applied across the board to leveraged TANGIBLE RE which has been practiced for 100+ years.

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

    Wait!  I just dug up another Buffett quote:

    Bob - you really need to set this Buffett guy straight...he seems to think you're wrong!!!

     I've tried, but when he says sh*t like that it's cause he's on the other coke.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/20... And he's actually pro leverage, it's worked well for him, but he's saying liquor+leverage caused the failure.  Nothing wrong with liquor.....or leverage for that matter.

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

    Wait!  I just dug up another Buffett quote:

    Bob - you really need to set this Buffett guy straight...he seems to think you're wrong!!!

     And it's pronounced Boo Fey!  Geez, it's right near you and you never been to Pine Valley! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfMZc1ziEnI

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

    Warren Buffett talking about real estate investors "swimming naked" and Bob Bowling "exposing" the real estate excessive masturbators.  All this in the free section!  Makes ya wonder what is happening in the private space of the "Pro" members.

    Sacre bleu!  Viva la Bigger Pockets!

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y

    Yes,  I do.   You're saying that in moderation it's okay, but too much is bad.  

    Just like leverage?   There's a down side with too much. 

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    Wait!  I just dug up another Buffett quote:

    Bob - you really need to set this Buffett guy straight...he seems to think you're wrong!!!

     I've tried, but when he says sh*t like that it's cause he's on the other coke.

    Got it.   Your argument is that you're right and Warren Buffet is wrong. 

    That explains a lot about you... 

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @J Scott:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    Wait!  I just dug up another Buffett quote:

    Bob - you really need to set this Buffett guy straight...he seems to think you're wrong!!!

     I've tried, but when he says sh*t like that it's cause he's on the other coke.

    Got it.   Your argument is that you're right and Warren Buffet is wrong. 

    That explains a lot about you... 

    I think most people on on my side about the coke.  Are you saying everyone should drink 800+ calories of sugary beverages a day?   

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

    @Ron Thomas Hi Ron, thanks for your support with Bob. Not sure exactly why he feels the need to be obnoxious. He chooses not to answer questions but wants to portray that he knows the answers. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Unfortunately his approach, whether humorous or otherwise is not of any great learning value to the new investors looking for advice on BP. I am new to BP but not new to investing so I would like to think that the humour of Bob is funny, but the not so funny aspect is how it may misguide less experienced people to believe there is no risk in leverage.

    I joined BP to learn about the market in the USA before I start my investment program. This is good learning for me as it shows very clearly that there are people all over the world, here in Australia and in the USA, who either do or do not know what they are doing and either help or hinder the learning process. It's all about perspective. Thanks for your honest, open input and Bob, thanks for your humour.

    On with the learning!

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

    @David Nolan  Thanks for the insightful posts.  I wouldn't put to much thought into Bob's writings.  Apparently faulty logic and abrasive, off-putting character transcends national boarders because you took away the same things from him that I did.

    Cheers!  I look forward to reading more of what you write.   

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

    @Ron Thomas Hi Ron, thanks for your support with Bob. Not sure exactly why he feels the need to be obnoxious. He chooses not to answer questions but wants to portray that he knows the answers. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Unfortunately his approach, whether humorous or otherwise is not of any great learning value to the new investors looking for advice on BP. I am new to BP but not new to investing so I would like to think that the humour of Bob is funny, but the not so funny aspect is how it may misguide less experienced people to believe there is no risk in leverage.

    I joined BP to learn about the market in the USA before I start my investment program. This is good learning for me as it shows very clearly that there are people all over the world, here in Australia and in the USA, who either do or do not know what they are doing and either help or hinder the learning process. It's all about perspective. Thanks for your honest, open input and Bob, thanks for your humour.

    On with the learning!

     David, if the truth is obnoxious then that is your problem not mine,  Can you point to any specific questions that I have refused to answer?  I am more than happy to answer any question.  

    Sadly no one has show an example of someone choosing to use leverage and being in a riskier situation.  I have in fact shown that the leverage made no difference yet you want to make wadda bout arguments where the leverage user has to start with $100,000 less than the all cash person. What if we both choose to leverage but I have $100,000 in cash and you do not.  Sure YOU are taking more risk but it is NOT because of the leverage.  It is because you do not have the financial reserves that I have.  See how AGAIN it is NOT about the leverage.  That is pretty much there in black an white.  If you choose ignorance fine.

  • Investor · Harper Woods, MI · Member since 2015 · 21 posts · 9 votes
    11y

    I think we are also confusing frames of reference here:

    @Account Closed's is:

    Two investors who want to invest in a $100,000 house. Both have $100,000 to invest.

    Invester A invests only $10,000 and keeps $90,000 in cash reserves ( @Account Closed am I correct, or is the reserves tied up in other investments?)

    The important thing is, we are considering that there is $100,000 involved in this investment even though $90,000 of it is in cash reserves. In other words, we are looking at it in context of the investor's entire portfolio.

    Invester B invests all $100,000.

    Since both investors have the same amount of money tied up in the transaction and both loose $10,000, there is no difference in the risk, because @Account Closed is using a basis of $100,000 for both investors.

    The rest are using $10,000 as the basis for investor A (Who may or may not have $90,000 in cash reserves or other investments. We are not considering this if he does.), so we are considering the leverage as a higher risk because investor A looses his entire basis. In this example we are looking at it in the context of only this investment.

    The frames of reference are an entire portfolio (@Account Closed's method) and a single investment (The other method). Depending upon the frame of reference you are talking about, you come to different conclusions on the risk level of the leverage.

    Just my two cents.

  • Investor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2015 · 6k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Brent Coombs:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    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?  

    Bob, I want to say: NO! But instead, I will give you a clue:

    Didn't ask for a clue.  I want the patently obvious answer? Geez, why do I bother?  Wait, are you teasing me like a Guru?  How much do I have to pay to get "the secret"?

     Bob, instead, can YOU please explain to me why investment cap rates SHOULDN'T range between 4%-16% for different properties/locations?...

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

    Bob, I want to say: NO! But instead, I will give you a clue:

    Didn't ask for a clue.  I want the patently obvious answer? Geez, why do I bother?  Wait, are you teasing me like a Guru?  How much do I have to pay to get "the secret"?

     Bob, instead, can YOU please explain to me why investment cap rates SHOULDN'T range between 4%-16% for different properties/locations?...

     I never said cap rates should not have a range.  The question was in response to this statement made by @Ron Thomas,

    "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. " 

    He was giving a new definition of Cap rate. So if Value=NOI/interest rate then

    since interest interest rates are pretty much uniform across the country, let's say 4% then if you were looking at $50,000 NOI then value=$50,000/4%. $1,250,000=$50,000/4%. Basically he seems to be saying cap rate = interest rate. So there would be little range of cap rates. Makes no sense!

    @Brent Coombs please comment..

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