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
1,072 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 · Peachtree Corners, GA · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Dang how I've missed the Bob and J show!  :)

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

    @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....

     It's the risk of the person paying the loan back.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:

    @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....

     It's the risk of the person paying the loan.

    Wait, the person paying the loan (i.e., the one with the leverage) has risk???  I thought you said leverage has no risks?

    Okay, now it's your turn to backtrack and tell us that's not what you meant...go!

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

    @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....

     It's the risk of the person paying the loan.

    Wait, the person paying the loan (i.e., the one with the leverage) has risk???  I thought you said leverage has no risks?

    Okay, now it's your turn to backtrack and tell us that's not what you meant...go!

    GAWD, it's the lenders risk! Not the investor. The lender charges the PMI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

     GAWD,  it's the lenders risk!  

    You said "It's the risk of the person paying the loan."

    Then you said, "It's the lenders risk!"

    The person paying the loan is called "the borrower," not the lender.

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

    You guys are killing me! :)

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @J Scott:
    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.

    Bob - Still waiting for your response here...

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

    @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.

     Aloha Cliff.  I did not say you were talking about me.  I stated, "I report on the doubling of values in San Francisco every ten years but NOT blindly."  There are others her that say the same thing.  

    Everything you've said here was said back when I was buying condo's in Diamond Head for $30,000+ thousand.  How will people afford a $100,000 one bedroom,  then how will people afford a $200,000 one bedroom then, well my young self said out loud "NO one will ever pay $250,000 for a one bedroom condo!!!!"  My original condo bought for $53 SF.  Similar unit just sold for $767 SF.   I am living in a condo that wold sell for  $1315 SF!    

    Yes, the 1% ers will occupy more of these areas but as I pointed out alot of homeowners in these areas has MASSIVE equity.  More than likely that equity will pass to heirs.

    Also we are seeing some of the future with the AirBnB where people will BE 1%ers for a few days.  They could never afford the house but they can afford to be the occupant for a few days.

    Poor people?  We have rent control for some units.  Developers have to provide some BMR units for the privilege to build here.  Also we have the "tiny" condos.

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

     GAWD,  it's the lenders risk!  

    You said "It's the risk of the person paying the loan."

    Then you said, "It's the lenders risk!"

    The person paying the loan is called "the borrower," not the lender.

     The lenders risk OF the person paying the loan BACK.  

             *           risk OF the person paying the loan  *

    Quit being a bully. Surely you knew where the risk is? Don't you? Are you saying you thought the lender was not trying to cover HIS risk by charging PMI?

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

    Bob - Still waiting for your response here...

     Gawd!   You are saying LOWER RETURNS Increase RISKS.

    Think about that and get back to me.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Gawd!   You are saying LOWER RETURNS Increase RISKS.

    Think about that and get back to me.

    Okay, good...it sounds like you at least agree that some leverage can reduce returns (very proud of you for finally learning that)...

    Now, here's a quote you made earlier in the thread:

    I think we can both agree that lower returns is a downside.  

    Or do you strive for lower returns?

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

    Okay, good...it sounds like you at least agree that some leverage can reduce returns (very proud of you for finally learning that)...

    Where the hell did I agree to that?  Are you hearing voices?

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    Okay, good...it sounds like you at least agree that some leverage can reduce returns (very proud of you for finally learning that)...

    Where the hell did I agree to that?  Are you hearing voices?

    Do you believe that negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?

    Simple question...

  • 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:

    Okay, good...it sounds like you at least agree that some leverage can reduce returns (very proud of you for finally learning that)...

    Where the hell did I agree to that?  Are you hearing voices?

    Do you believe that negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?

    Simple question...

    J   Here is my statement  "Leverage does NOT magnify losses."  

    Now if you want to start a thread on whatever the hell you want to talk about,  Well here's your title  "negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?"  I may choose to participate.

    If you want to discuss leverage magnifying losses here I will happily participate.  I will not be drug into another of your definition changing/ rambling topic rants.  

    Slow pamphlet selling day? ;-)

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    Okay, good...it sounds like you at least agree that some leverage can reduce returns (very proud of you for finally learning that)...

    Where the hell did I agree to that?  Are you hearing voices?

    Do you believe that negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?

    Simple question...

    J   Here is my statement  "Leverage does NOT magnify losses."  

    Now if you want to start a thread on whatever the hell you want to talk about,  Well here's your title  "negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?"  I may choose to participate.

    If you want to discuss leverage magnifying losses here I will happily participate.  I will not be drug into another of your definition changing/ rambling topic rants.  

    Slow pamphlet selling day? ;-)

    Bob -

    Here is a statement of yours from earlier in this thread:

    I'll ask one more time and we'll see if you're true to your word about answering any question:

    Do you believe that negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?

  • 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:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    Okay, good...it sounds like you at least agree that some leverage can reduce returns (very proud of you for finally learning that)...

    Where the hell did I agree to that?  Are you hearing voices?

    Do you believe that negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?

    Simple question...

    J   Here is my statement  "Leverage does NOT magnify losses."  

    Now if you want to start a thread on whatever the hell you want to talk about,  Well here's your title  "negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?"  I may choose to participate.

    If you want to discuss leverage magnifying losses here I will happily participate.  I will not be drug into another of your definition changing/ rambling topic rants.  

    Slow pamphlet selling day? ;-)

    Bob -

    Here is a statement of yours from earlier in this thread:

    I'll ask one more time and we'll see if you're true to your word about answering any question:

    Do you believe that negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?

     Yes.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @J Scott:

    Bob -

    Here is a statement of yours from earlier in this thread:

    I'll ask one more time and we'll see if you're true to your word about answering any question:

    Do you believe that negative leverage INCREASES, DECREASES or has NO IMPACT on the returns of the invested capital?

     Yes.

    I don't ever expect you to admit you're wrong...I just like to watch you start avoiding questions and going off on tangents once you realize that you're backed into a corner and everyone has recognized that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Now that you've proven your ignorance about financial math (once again), I'll leave you to start your frustrated rambling and adamant reiteration of your flawed beliefs...

    Have a great night!

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

    J Sorry, my answer got over 40 email responses.   You are hilarious.  OR is it me?

    When you get certified by the state of California to testify as an expert witness on property valuations.  OR value over $40,000,000,000 worth of properties, or show me the money you got from professional modeling, OR show me the picture from your ocean front Honolulu condo, OR show me a picture of your b*tch that is cuter than mine....Oh sh*t J,  you like me, you really like me!

    J, I think I even warned ya that I grew up with 5 little sisters.  Yet you keep coming back for the torment.  Ha Ha

  • Property Manager · Bixby, OK · Member since 2015 · 52 posts · 13 votes
    11y

    im not sure I follow this. Real estate is more like a bond lower return but lower risk. The "millions" are made from positive cash flows and equity growth from reduction of leveraged debt not just value appreciation. I don't neccesarily agree with the appreciation vs inflation argument but if I did I could also argue that leverage plus equity increase plus positive cash flow would equate to positive wealth growth. Technically every stated return for stocks bonds and real estate and 401K doesn't account for inflation you have to take each deal on its merits and adjust for your investment goal. If you could trade stocks on margin with 100% leverage real estate would not be the path to wealth but you can't 

  • Residential Real Estate Broker · Riverside, CA · Member since 2014 · 82 posts · 121 votes
    11y

    @Ron Thomas I think your article is the best one I have seen that stated the obvious to the newbies without making them look foolish. Real Estate is a business. You don't get into business expecting appreciation to be your profit center. I hate to refer to myself as an investor, even though I have bought and sold over 400 properties.  I don't buy houses for cash flow either. Your cash flow can be eaten up with one or two months vacancy. 

    What you have explained to others is that you must either find a bargain or have a way of adding value so you can make the profit you anticipated. Simple. I hope I read you right. Most wannabe investors fail to appreciate these simple facts. They buy into the pie in the sky sold by professional marketers who do not buy real estate on a regular basis. I hope others will see the wisdom in your post and act accordingly. 

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

    @Toyin Dawodu Thanks for the support!  I agree, it was meant as a word of caution to the lesser experienced.  When I first wanted to invest I observed this but didn't really understand the underlying fundamentals back then.  I figured putting words to it may be helpful to some.

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

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

    Yea!  Jay, you made your first point on BP and it should not go unrecognized!  Since you made this observation you were responsible for 67% of the posts arguing with me.  Congratulations!  ;-)

  • Investor · Kalamazoo, MI · Member since 2014 · 60 posts · 25 votes
    11y

    CPI = inflation and the biggest component of inflation is housing, so yeah one = the other.

    However, that doesn't mean much, because it only works in the long run and on, and in the long run, we're all dead and in the ground.  

    Appreciation is a real thing, and in some markets, during our lifetime, it will consistently exceed inflation.  Not sure which ones of course, but I can guess pretty well based on demographic trends.

    My dad bought some farmland by a highway exit about 70 years ago expecting it to eventually boom in value. It probably will. It hasn't so far... and farmland generates minimal revenue.

    My apartment in Manhattan was worth $1M when I rented it about 10 years back.  Now it's worth $3M....  it's not going down anytime soon.

  • Professional · Carlsbad, CA · Member since 2012 · 12k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Yes trading stocks on margin via a self-directed IRA or self-directed solo 401k plan will trigger UBIT.

  • Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 183 posts · 22 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ron Thomas:

    It appears there is an issue with the statement: "House prices will never outpace inflation over time, its impossible"

    Historical data for both the housing price index and inflation is publicly available information. Within the last 30 years for instance (between 1984 and 2014), the average yearly inflation was 2.84%. The average increase in home prices within the same period was 6.46%. 

    What real fact is this assumption based on?

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