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
829 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
  • Specialist · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Amit M.:

    oh goody...bob's here to save the day :)

    My 2c: why stop at averaging national housing stats?  Let's go global and include shanty towns in India, castles in the UK, mud huts in Yemen, Monaco penthouses and bombed out apartments in Beriut?  That'll surely give us more representation of a long term and broad based housing market to compare inflation with. 

     I'm guessing that's sarcasm but who knows. Hard for me to detect it after 1/2 cup of coffee and based on purely text.

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

    @ Everyone

    This is fun.

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

    @ Everyone

    This is fun.

    On a somewhat serious note home price movement both in the short and long term is very important. The same would be said for both inflation and income hence how these variables intertwine is very important. 

    Some of what you are trying to describe is captured in some ways by Fred's 'housing affordability index'

    Along with some of the data, when some economist of the likes of Robert Shiller say things like this: "...real home prices are essentially trend-less and do not show any continuous uptrend or downtrend in the long-run.." it is somewhat difficult to say with certainty the claim put forth here. There are quite a bit a variables that complicates how house prices relate to income. 

    California would be a good case to look at in regards to home prices there and income/affordability. The fact that there are intermittent bubbles doesn't necessarily imply that housing prices will never outpace income growth in the long run. If anything is clear (at least based on the data), it is that real income growth is usually 'painfully' slow. Businesses often have an incentive to suppress income growth and literally have a tendency to oppose wage increases vehemently.

    ( https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPHAI )

  • Rental Property Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    it's not about intermittent bubbles, reversion to means, etc.  The point is that tracking housing costs for the entire USA, while interesting from an academic economists POV, is virtually meaningless to specific RE investors, especially those in places like costal CA, NYC, Hawaii, etc.  Ironically, the antithesis of this research based and intellectual debate, the much chided Realtor's (TM) crying call of Location! Location! Location!, is correct.  Which is why locations like SF Bay Area have not tracked national inflation for a good 40 years. Now if you want to get academic and look at housing costs in the Bay Area in the 1900's, or speculate what they will be 300 years from now be my guest. But that has nothing to do with what they were, or will be in the timeframe that is relevant for most investors. 

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

    Which is why locations like SF Bay Area have not tracked national inflation for a good 40 years. 

    But they have (and will continue to) track income.  Housing price growth won't outpace income growth in the long run...

    The question becomes whether places like the Bay Area can sustain income growth like they've had the past 20-30 years?  Having lived and worked there for a long time and having a reasonable understanding of the Bay Area economy, I certainly have my personal views on the subject.  Just like everyone else...

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

    Which is why locations like SF Bay Area have not tracked national inflation for a good 40 years. 

    But they have (and will continue to) track income.  Housing price growth won't outpace income growth in the long run...

    The question becomes whether places like the Bay Area can sustain income growth like they've had the past 20-30 years?   

    J how are you defining income?  I know plenty of W-2 income people with under $100,000 a year household income in $1,000,000 houses  And are you limiting income growth to the Bay Area.  I know plenty of homes that are bought by people that DON"T live or make their money here?  And they don't need a turnkey facilitator to convince them to invest here.  Supply and demand J,  ever hear of it.

    20-30 years?  Prop 13 was voted in 1978, almost 40 years ago.   

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

    Exactly.  If you truly understand the economic laws around supply and demand, you should be able to figure out why what I said above is true.

    Of course, you don't have to believe me...you can pick up any intro to economics text and it will say the same thing.  If you disagree, feel free to argue with the authors of those books...they know more than I do...

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

    Exactly.  If you truly understand the economic laws around supply and demand, you should be able to figure out why what I said above is true. 

    Jay you said, "But they have (and will continue to) track income. Housing price growth won't outpace income growth in the long run...

    You have a history of changing your definitions and assertions so just trying to show you how your statement is incorrect unless you are using some wonky definitions.  That seems to be the case because instead of just answering the question you are in usual obfuscation mode.  

    1.  So what is your definition of income?

    2.  What are the limitations of where the income comes from?

    2.  How long is the "long run"?

    Then you might want to explain the need for rent control and BMR's (below market rate) sales.

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

    1.  So what is your definition of income?

    2.  What are the limitations of where the income comes from?

    2.  How long is the "long run"?

    These are things that textbooks are written about and are discussed in depth in any good economics course.  They can't be summarized in a couple sentences (well, they could be summarized, but you'd just want to argue with the summaries because you wouldn't find them complete enough). 

    As I've encouraged you to do in the past, go pick up a couple good Macro Economics textbooks or take a few economics classes at your local college.  It would make all of our arguments a lot easier if you had a solid background in this stuff...

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

    1.  So what is your definition of income?

    2.  What are the limitations of where the income comes from?

    2.  How long is the "long run"?

    These are things that textbooks are written about and are discussed in depth in any good economics course.  They can't be summarized in a couple sentences (well, they could be summarized, but you'd just want to argue with the summaries because you wouldn't find them complete enough). 

    As I've encouraged you to do in the past, go pick up a couple good Macro Economics textbooks or take a few economics classes at your local college.  It would make all of our arguments a lot easier if you had a solid background in this stuff...

     Um, you were the guy saying lower returns increase risks...

    Anyway I'll match my 70's econ degree against any 90's college/high school equivalent.  

    So what's the sense of all yer book lerning if you can't formulate an argument for your outrageous theories.  ;-)

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

    Anyway I'll match my 70's econ degree against any 90's college/high school equivalent.

    If you really had an econ degree, you wouldn't be asking the questions you did above.  You'd already know the answers...

    Of course, last week you were telling us that you knew more about business than Warren Buffett...everything you ever say past that is now skeptical...

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

    I think one reason certain areas don't reliably track affordability indexes are the international flavors of these coastal enclaves. There is demand from across the globe and there is only a limited supply. This is not like a one company or industry town where the prices are in step with incomes. That relationship is a non sequitor for these locations. 

    The same questions about how can this continue were asked 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. The answer historically is yes the prices will continue to decouple incomes simply based on supply and demand fundamentals alone. Of course there are hipcups along the way but the trend I am not sure is untrendable long term. The planet is only getting smaller, when someone achieves a certain level of success from anywhere...they pack up and move or invest to where they think it is better. 

    Supporting sidebar: 73% of folks who leave Cali make less than 50k per year.. The majority of folks who now move to Cali make over 100k per year. This is a new trend that will probably escalate.

  • Bedford, NH · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Wait, Bob, are you suggesting that the notion that housing prices track inflation is an "outrageous theory?"

    Because right or wrong (and it is right, btw) what it CERTAINLY is NOT is "outrageous."  It is the widely-held (indeed, near universal) consensus.

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

    Anyway I'll match my 70's econ degree against any 90's college/high school equivalent.

    If you really had an econ degree, you wouldn't be asking the questions you did above.  You'd already know the answers...

    Of course, last week you were telling us that you knew more about business than Warren Buffett...everything you ever say past that is now skeptical...

     I do know the answer.  You obviously don't or you would just answer.  Also what about real estate owned by business entities?  Are you using their income?  What if it is a non US corporation?  See how your statement keeps falling apart?

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

    Wait, Bob, are you suggesting that the notion that housing prices track inflation is an "outrageous theory?"

     Whoa @Richard C.  Follow the discusion. J's ramblings have you off track.  The discusion is about SF.

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

    I do know the answer. 

    Bob, if you knew the answer, you wouldn't have asked me...

    That said, I'm flattered that you come to me when you have questions.  

    Done arguing with someone who believes he's smarter than Warren Buffett...have a great night!

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

    Of course, last week you were telling us that you knew more about business than Warren Buffett...everything you ever say past that is now skeptical...

    Actually J it was you that said i needed to "set Warren straight".  Quit draggin poor Warren into this.  He can post on his own if he chooses. 

  • Rental Property Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Time for another episode of the (sing it)....

    ...It's the Bob and Jaaayyyyy showwww!

  • Elkhorn, NE · Member since 2015 · 2 posts · 2 votes
    11y

    @Bob Bowling is saying the total dollar amount is the same lost regardless of leverage thus no greater or lesser risk.

    The rest of you are saying the return/loss on the "capital invested" as a "percentage" increases or decreases with leverage.

    Bob and most of you are correct.

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

    @Bob Bowling is saying the total dollar amount is the same lost regardless of leverage thus no greater or lesser risk.

    The rest of you are saying the return/loss on the "capital invested" as a "percentage" increases or decreases with leverage.

    Bob and most of you are correct.

     Thanks Warren, if I can swing a 0% Va loan on the property across the street from you we'll be neighbors!

  • Elkhorn, NE · Member since 2015 · 1 post · 1 vote
    11y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    @Bob Bowling is saying the total dollar amount is the same lost regardless of leverage thus no greater or lesser risk.

    The rest of you are saying the return/loss on the "capital invested" as a "percentage" increases or decreases with leverage.

    Bob and most of you are correct.

    I need to apologize for my son here.  I dropped him on his head when he was a boy, and he ain't never been too smart...

  • Elkhorn, NE · Member since 2015 · 2 posts · 2 votes
    11y

    Smart enough to see the differences in peoples points instead of blindly arguing with them dad!  by the way no inheritance? really?

  • Rental Property Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2010 · 804 posts · 230 votes
    11y

    @Account Closed  Will the real Warren Buffett please stand up?

  • Member since 2018 · 1 post · 0 votes
    8y

    Ron, we cannot assume that inflation rate will equal average wage rate in the long term.  It may be the case that wages for certain demographics will be on pace with inflation for long periods of time.  However, the average wage rate is by definition equal to GDP per capita.  GDP per capita growth will necessarily exceed inflation in both the long run and the short run.  The reason is that there will always be new technologies that increase productivity and allow the economy to produce more per person (in real terms).

    If you look historically, as I have, GDP per capita growth exceeds inflation by about 1.1% per year.  That may sound measly.  However, as I do my own rent vs. own calculation, if I assume that real estate prices will appreciate at the inflation rate, renting is more attractive than buying.  However, if I assume that real estate will appreciate at 1.1% above inflation, then buying becomes more attractive.  

    In other words, it is solely BECAUSE of the expectation of productivity growth that buying a house makes more sense than renting.  I know that the purpose of your article is not related to buying vs. renting, but I wanted to illustrate the importance of the 1.1% difference between GDP per capita growth and inflation rate.

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