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

    @Account Closed Your original "guns blazing" response to @Ron Thomas only quoted "Everyone that's read a book understands that Price=NOI/Cap Rate", (not the bit that said "the present value of a given stream of infinite cashflows = that cashflow divided by the current rate of interest").

    As for his term "cashflow", it should have been obvious that he meant "cash-on-cash rate of return" (divided by prevailing interest rate)! Cheers...

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

    @Account Closed Your original "guns blazing" response to @Ron Thomas only quoted "Everyone that's read a book understands that Price=NOI/Cap Rate", (not the bit that said "the present value of a given stream of infinite cashflows = that cashflow divided by the current rate of interest").

    As for his term "cashflow", it should have been obvious that he meant "cash-on-cash rate of return" (divided by prevailing interest rate)! Cheers...

    Dude!  Here's the exact "guns blazin" quote of mine,

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

    So you, Brent Coombs,  are saying he meant the present value of a given stream of infinite cash-on-cash rates of return!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!= that cash on cash rate of return/the interest rate.   Ha Ha Clueless

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

    @Account Closed I'm fairly sure that when I want to know how well my (passive-forever) investments are doing, I would be well advised to compare the interest rate I am receiving compared to the interest I would be getting by just leaving it in the bank! But you don't?...

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

    @Account Closed I'm fairly sure that when I want to know how well my (passive-forever) investments are doing, I would be well advised to compare the interest rate I am receiving compared to the interest I would be getting by just leaving it in the bank! But you don't?...

     Where are you RECEIVING an interest rate that you are comparing to a bank rate?  Tenants don't pay interest rates!  LOL

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

    @Account Closed

    This quote below from you is entirely based on the wrongful assumption that my writing of the word 'interest rate' is referring, basically, to the fed rate and not the market rate of interest an investor would expect a given asset to return unlevered.

    "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!"

    No one who actually thought that through would think NOI, factored for a rate of interest set by central bank to influence the macroeconomy, would be the prudent way someone would go about figuring the present value of a stream of future cash flows for a given asset. If you really thought that was what I meant then I have this funny feeling your misinterpretation was based on a mere desire to argue.

    Anyway, back to the point about leverage being risk free. In simple terms so the rest of us can comprehend, can you please explain the existence of PMI if leverage is, in fact, as you vehemently profess, risk free?

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

    @Account Closed

    This quote below from you is entirely based on the wrongful assumption that my writing of the word 'interest rate' is referring, basically, to the fed rate and not the market rate of interest an investor would expect a given asset to return unlevered.

    "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!"

    No one who actually thought that through would think NOI, factored for a rate of interest set by central bank to influence the macroeconomy, would be the prudent way someone would go about figuring the present value of a stream of future cash flows for a given asset. If you really thought that was what I meant then I have this funny feeling your misinterpretation was based on a mere desire to argue.

    @Ron Thomas YOU were the one that made the statement that was basically trying to redefine Value=NOI/cap rate. Between you an @Brent Coombs all you have done is backtrack on your initial statement. You inexperienced and uneducated people come on here trying to make up new definitions of established real estate terms and then blame the people that try to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.

    So for EVERYBODYS sake please explain what you meant by "the market rate of interest an investor would expect a given asset to return unlevered."  I've been doing this for almost 40 years and have never expected a "market rate of interest" on my rentals.  

    PLEASE< PLEASE explain what YOU mean by this.

    AND, what are the calculations to get a market rate of interest for real property?

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Rochester, NY · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Steve Olafson:

    I would assume that you would consider leverage as one of those financing numbers that allows magic to happen.  Any commercial or apartment building is going to use cap rates as a valuation. 

    If you leverage your money with an 80% mortgage, your equity will rise much faster as a percentage. If income and expenses go up at 2% per year, your value will rise based on the cap rate.

    1,000,000 value

    200,000 down

    Cap rate 7%

    70,000 NOI

    2% inflation for NOI over one year is 71,400

    NOI * cap rate = value

    Value is now 1,020,000 using the cap rate. 

    A $20,000 gain is 10% based on the $200,000 down payment.

    Now figure out how to make the rents go up faster than inflation using the value-add process or buying at the right time and you have yourself a winner.  It can certainly return you much more than inflation.

    Most people don't understand this.  I completely agree with the original post.  However, it should be noted that even if property increases only at inflation rate (or even lags!), by leveraging your investment you also leverage return on investment due to appreciation and this can easily outpace inflation, as per your example.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Rochester, NY · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:

    I agree Tom, with the exception of the stock market.  That has consistently beat inflation over time and I assume its because people are investing capital in business that create value.  But yes, education, healthcare and the rest are all crowded out from growing too much as a portion of total spending with time because all are necessities.  Even if you 'need' more house or healthcare, at a certain point you 'need' other things just as much.

    The reason the stock market can outpace inflation is because the entire market is growing.  This is due in large part to population growth and in small part to productivity gains.  There will be more cars and iphones bought as the population and productivity grow.  There will be more mattresses bought as population grows.

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

    Thanks for the insight @Larry Turowski  I've heard the stock market is expected to grow a bit slower in the future than in the past, say 8% per year on average as opposed to 10%.  Have you heard the same, and if so do you think population is a main driver of that?

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Rochester, NY · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:

    Thanks for the insight @Larry Turowski  I've heard the stock market is expected to grow a bit slower in the future than in the past, say 8% per year on average as opposed to 10%.  Have you heard the same, and if so do you think population is a main driver of that?

    First, kudos for a great original post.  Spot on.

    I've read similar but I can't remember where.  Population can't grow forever either.  Some say it has to top out at 10 billion.  That should only take a few decades.  At that point the only thing growing GDP of the earth would be productivity.  Kinda scary to think about.  If there were no productivity gains things would have to flatten out.  It would become a zero-sum game.  The only way to get ahead would be, as in poker, for someone else to lose.  You could do that by somehow capture greater market share or by taking advantage of misallocation of resources.  There will always be localized imbalances.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Rochester, NY · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    @Ron Thomas @David Nolan

    I know I'll regret this  but I'll take a crack at explaining how leverage carries risk--at least for the benefit of the some.

    Invest $100K in any asset either non-leveraged or leveraged at 10x.  Assume the asset decreases in value by 10%.

    Non-leveraged:  $100K invested in $100K asset.  $0 Debt.  Asset decreases in value by 10%.  $90K remaining value.  Sell asset and realize a $10K loss.  Return on investment: -10%

    Leveraged:  $100K invested in $1M asset.  $900K debt.  Asset decreases by 10%.  $900K remaining value.  Sell asset and realize a $100K loss.  Return on investment: -100%.

  • Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 111 posts · 73 votes
    11y

    @Ron Thomas

    After reading all that bickering about leverage, I'm glad to see we have gotten back to the original post.

    I'm surprised it took this long to bring up population growth.  Depending on population growth, that can have a big influence on prices.  Also, just because we currently use 26% of gross income to pay for housing doesn't mean that will always be the case.  That number can change.    Financial manipulation can also keep prices expanding (introduction of a 40 year mortgage).  (Not out of the realm of possibility, governments have been selling 50 and 100 year bonds.  If there is a political will to keep prices up they will stop at nothing to do so.)

    I point this stuff out because I think there is the possibility to point to reasons why.  I think when you start to lay this stuff out and playing it to its end, compound growth can not continue forever.  The question then becomes, how does my investment timeline line up?  Do you think the bubble will burst and how soon?  Does it make sense to try and wait it out?  

    I do think it is troubling when people blindly say because real estate prices have doubled in SF then they are going to double in another ten.  Not picking on SF, it was the first city I thought of.  This could be a whole bunch of cities.  Is it possible? Sure.  When you start figuring out what a person will need to make to live in these cities, it gets absurd really quick.  I don't think that is sustainable and I think it is a low probability trade.   And there is no question there will be someone on BP that will comment in 10 years about how they killed in SF real estate.  I think you need to focus on the high probability trades.  

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

    @Larry Turowski Thanks for the kind words.  Hopefully your radical notion of leverage carrying risk doesn't provoke such backlash as it did for Dave and I.

    @Cliff Mccue Great points, I really have no retort for any of them.  It sounds like you know what you are talking about.

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

    @Ron Thomas @David Nolan

    I know I'll regret this  but I'll take a crack at explaining how leverage carries risk--at least for the benefit of the some.

    Invest $100K in any asset either non-leveraged or leveraged at 10x.  Assume the asset decreases in value by 10%.

    Non-leveraged:  $100K invested in $100K asset.  $0 Debt.  Asset decreases in value by 10%.  $90K remaining value.  Sell asset and realize a $10K loss.  Return on investment: -10%

    Leveraged:  $100K invested in $1M asset.  $900K debt.  Asset decreases by 10%.  $900K remaining value.  Sell asset and realize a $100K loss.  Return on investment: -100%.

     SERIOUSLY @Larry T ??????????????????  YOU said,

    Leveraged: $100K invested in $1M asset. $900K debt. Asset decreases by 10%. $900K remaining value. Sell asset and realize a $100K loss. Return on investment: -100%.

    Now the unleveraged pairing to that would be

    $1.000.000 invested in $1M asset. No Debt. Asset decreases by 10%.  $900K remaining value.  Sell asset and realize a $100,000 loss.  

    Loss on property leveraged $100,000!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Loss on property unleveraged $100,000!!!!!!!!!

    Exactly the same loss.  

    "F"'s to everybody in this class.

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

       Also, just because we currently use 26% of gross income to pay for housing doesn't mean that will always be the case.  That number can change. 

    Very true.

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

    I do think it is troubling when people blindly say because real estate prices have doubled in SF then they are going to double in another ten.  Not picking on SF, it was the first city I thought of.  This could be a whole bunch of cities.  Is it possible? Sure.  When you start figuring out what a person will need to make to live in these cities, it gets absurd really quick.  I don't think that is sustainable and I think it is a low probability trade.   And there is no question there will be someone on BP that will comment in 10 years about how they killed in SF real estate.  I think you need to focus on the high probability trades.  

    I report on the doubling of values in San Francisco every ten years but NOT blindly. 

    And this has happened every decade for at least 50 years.  I've also  seen people cash out and move their equity out of the Bay Area every decade for fear of imminent crash because "IT JUST CAN'T DOUBLE AGAIN!".  Most people realize that leaving the Bay  Area is a one way trip.  

    I do think the housing prices WILL continue to double over the next several decades. San Francisco pricing is not tied to local wage growth. You have to realize that even the wage earners that are in the market for move up homes are sitting on hundreds of thousands if not over a million in equity so the market is not just first time buyers trying to get a VA loan on a starter home. That is part of why this appreciation can continue.

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

    @Account Closed You said "Tenants don't pay interest rates! LOL". (Informative to see how easily you amused yourself so thoroughly). 

    But Bob, it should be "patently obvious", even to you, that the amount that tenants pay, minus expenses, DOES represent the investors "interest rate" (when annualized and divided from their initial outlay)! You DO understand cap rate, right?

    I don't see where anyone above was trying to redefine "cap rate" (as you seem to be suggesting), but rather, maybe putting it in context of their opportunity cost (ie. their actual cap rate compared to bank or alternative investment rates). LOL?...

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

    @Account Closed You said "Tenants don't pay interest rates! LOL". (Informative to see how easily you amused yourself so thoroughly). 

    But Bob, it should be "patently obvious", even to you, that the amount that tenants pay, minus expenses, DOES represent the investors "interest rate" (when annualized and divided from their initial outlay)! You DO understand cap rate, right?

    I don't see where anyone above was trying to redefine "cap rate" (as you seem to be suggesting), but rather, maybe putting it in context of their opportunity cost (ie. their actual cap rate compared to bank or alternative investment rates). LOL?...

    Brent, A cap rate is ONLY a ratio of NOI to purchase price. Comparing that to the rate you're getting from your Christmas Club saving account is ridiculous.

    Also now you seem to be confusing cap rates with ROE or whatever... you said, "that the amount that tenants pay, minus expenses, DOES represent the investors "interest rate" (when annualized and divided from their initial outlay )You DO understand cap rate, right?".  

     That makes NO sense.  See how you are making up terms?  

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

    Regarding cap rate vs ROI, Here's a shout-out to @Joshua D. so that I don't confuse myself, Bob and everybody else:- http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2007/05/25...

    Cheers...

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

    Regarding cap rate vs ROI, Here's a shout-out to @Joshua D. so that I don't confuse myself, Bob and everybody else:- http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2007/05/25...

    Cheers...

    I don't know Ryan Webber but he not only doesn't know operating expenses, NOI, and cap rate or how a cap rate is used but it ALSO doesn't support any of your statements. The only thing they have in common is that they are both wrong.

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

    I know I'll regret this  but I'll take a crack at explaining how leverage carries risk--at least for the benefit of the some.


    The most obvious place where leverage is detrimental to an investment is where the leverage is negatively geared -- i.e., the cost of capital exceeds the return on investment.  The result is that returns are reduced by that leverage.

    Of course, we had a discussion about this several months ago where Bob Bowling insisted there was no situation where leverage could cause a reduction in returns (he doesn't believe "negative leverage" exists).  It was at that point that I realized that Bob doesn't have a good grasp of the basics, despite his thinking he knows everything.

    That sentiment is continually reinforced (the thread where he argued the incorrect definition of "cash flow" for several pages was awesome...he disappeared for a few weeks after that one).  And now in this thread where Bob insists that he knows more about investing than Warren Buffett.

    You guys are welcome to keep arguing with him, but you know the old saying about arguing with fools...

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

    I know I'll regret this  but I'll take a crack at explaining how leverage carries risk--at least for the benefit of the some.

    The most obvious place where leverage is detrimental to an investment is where the leverage is negatively geared -- i.e., the cost of capital exceeds the return on investment.  The result is that returns are reduced by that leverage.

    Of course, we had a discussion about this several months ago where Bob Bowling insisted there was no situation where leverage could cause a reduction in returns (he doesn't believe "negative leverage" exists).  It was at that point that I realized that Bob doesn't have a good grasp of the basics, despite his thinking he knows everything.

    That sentiment is continually reinforced (the thread where he argued the incorrect definition of "cash flow" for several pages was awesome...he disappeared for a few weeks after that one).  And now in this thread where Bob insists that he knows more about investing than Warren Buffett.

    You guys are welcome to keep arguing with him, but you know the old saying about arguing with fools...

     Please stop your personal attacks.  As a moderator it only makes you look foolish. Stick to the facts.  If you can show how leverage increases risk then please do so.  Everyone else has failed so far.  

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

    @Account Closed

    ...Im still waiting for an explanation of why PMI exists (and is required on highly leveraged properties) if leverage doesn't amplify risks....

  • Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 111 posts · 73 votes
    11y

    @Account Closed

    I wasn't speaking of you when I said people blindly saying that.  I have spoken to many people regarding price appreciation in these high priced cities that have not thought about the consequences of what prices look like, what wages will need to look like, and how the markets will need to change to keep prices at those levels.  

    I agree that housing prices have doubled and if you look back, starting probably with the GI bill.  Housing prices has had the wind at its back since the 50's.  The market will need to continue to change and the changes will need to be larger and larger to support that type of appreciation.    

    Median home price in SF is currently just over a $1 million dollars.  To continue doubling for the next several decades means that 30 years from now median home price is $8 million.  A $6.4 million dollar house at current interest rates amortized over 30years has a 30,000 dollar a month payment.  If we move our number from 26% to 50% for gross income spent on housing.  People will need to make over 700,000 a year in the next 30 years and if it stays at 26% it will be close to 1.4 million.   I guess you can have the whole city made up of the 1%.  But then where do all the people that do all the menial jobs come from?  

    At some point it becomes unsustainable.  Does it happen in my life time?  I have no clue.  I was a trader for many years and I made lots of bets on the market.  I've made bets where I thought there was no way that X was going to happen and lost.  But I've never made a bet that said for this thing to pay off I need major shifts to happen in the market.  And I think that is what you need for the doubling of prices in SF every 10 years for the 30.  

    Sidenote:  The most likely scenario that I see it happening is a complete debasement of the dollar and in that situation I don't know that SF out performs any other markets on a percentage basis.

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

    If you can show how leverage increases risk then please do so.  Everyone else has failed so far.  

    Negative leverage lowers returns, which -- by definition -- increases risk.

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