Author Topic: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History  (Read 13447 times)

SeattleCPA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Redmond, WA
    • Evergreen Small Business
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2018, 10:20:27 AM »
DNA2RNA my post was not specifically directed to you. I was merely trying to show that REITs are correlated to equities. From the OP:

The other thing, really interesting to anybody who tries to employ modern portfolio theory to their investing, is that it looks like housing and equities are not very correlated.

It has been suggested that REITs could take the place of bonds in a portfolio and I was trying to point out that this is not the case.

Sorry for lack of clarity or poor writing... but just so there's not confusion about what I meant to say, I never thought or intended to say that REITs are uncorrelated to something like US stocks or international stocks. (I think the probably are less correlated than other stuff because Portfolio Visualizers says so... but not that much.)

It's direct residential real estate that displays low correlation and has in most countries for decades. That's the statistic that piques interest if one wants to apply MPT to your portfolio.

Kalergie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2018, 04:12:13 AM »
I'd like to pick this thread up as this is a really interesting topic for me. I personally have never invested in any type of real estate at all.

I believe real estate is not for everyone (not for me anyway). I don't like to be a landlord, I don't like to leverage at all, and I don't like the "hey landlord, this is your tenant. My toilette is broken, I don't care it's christmas eve! Come now and fix it or I withhold rent!"-kind of engagement that real estate usually entails.

However, I like to have a piece of the cake somehow. Currently my portfolio consists only of US and Int'l. index funds which do have REITs in them (about 3-4%). But the whole reason I hold the entire world in index funds is that I wanted to own the world. My understanding of this 150 year study is that real estate should be a heavy part of a world-portfolio to represent real weighing of wealth. Did I get this right?

Now how can I achieve this reasonably without holding physical real estate as commodity? Is being heavy on international REITs the answer?

Somehow isn't this the same as saying that you believe in Gold as a holding therefore buy mining companies? My gut feeling says this is the same fallacy.

What do you guys think?


 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 04:14:35 AM by Kalergie »

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2018, 01:37:44 PM »
But the whole reason I hold the entire world in index funds is that I wanted to own the world. My understanding of this 150 year study is that real estate should be a heavy part of a world-portfolio to represent real weighing of wealth. Did I get this right?

If your goal is truly to own a portfolio of assets that proportionately mirrors the actual allocation of worldwide "wealth," then yes, real estate should be a significant fraction of your portfolio.  But query whether that is in fact your goal.  As you noted, if it were, then you would also need to diversify your portfolio into a multitude of other asset classes presumably underrepresented in your current portfolio, potentially including (depending on how you set the parameters for "wealth") not only gold and other precious metals but also livestock, artwork, timber, pork bellies and various other asset categories too numerous to count.

Occasionally, someone will make the argument that the logic underlying a passive investment approach in the selection of individual assets within a specific asset category should be extended to the selection of asset categories at higher levels of generality, but that logic does not necessarily apply in the context of the latter.  I personally employ a passive investment approach in the selection of individual stocks within a geographic market (via purchasing broad stock market index funds in lieu of individual stocks), but I employ an active investment approach in the selection of general asset classes and subclasses in which to invest in the first place.  Compared to the actual global allocation of investable assets, my portfolio's allocation deliberately overweights U.S. stocks relative to non-U.S. stocks, and deliberately overweights, by an extreme margin, stocks in general relative to all other asset classes.

Kalergie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2018, 02:43:40 AM »
Thanks Brooklunguy.
Would you mind elaborating on this? How exactly do you do this?
I personally employ a passive investment approach in the selection of individual stocks within a geographic market (via purchasing broad stock market index funds in lieu of individual stocks), but I employ an active investment approach in the selection of general asset classes and subclasses in which to invest in the first place.  Compared to the actual global allocation of investable assets, my portfolio's allocation deliberately overweights U.S. stocks relative to non-U.S. stocks, and deliberately overweights, by an extreme margin, stocks in general relative to all other asset classes.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2018, 04:00:11 AM »
Well, people always need somewhere to live, so it makes sense. Just don't buy in a one-industry town, since if that industry leaves, the town dies.

Kalergie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #55 on: February 17, 2018, 04:25:19 AM »
Well, people always need somewhere to live, so it makes sense. Just don't buy in a one-industry town, since if that industry leaves, the town dies.

Yes, but also people always have to eat. That does not make me want to own a grocery or a farm. I am pretty real estate/brick and mortar averse though!


Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #56 on: February 17, 2018, 01:43:22 PM »
The price of food is relatively volatile, because so much more is produced than is needed, and each food has many substitutes. The same is not generally true of housing. If I decide that the $30/kg steak is too expensive, I can just get the $5/kg chicken instead. Over enough iterations, this gives the beef seller incentive to lower the price, and the chicken seller incentive to raise it, and so they become 20 and 10 instead, and so on.


As well, the lower price of food gives it some volatility. It's no big deal for a loaf of bread to go from $2 to $1 literally overnight, or vice versa; but a house and land won't go from $1,000,000 to $500,000 overnight unless arson is involved, or vice versa unless zoning laws change, or something. Real estate's more stable than food.


This is less true in countries with no real banking and credit regulation, like the US. A lack of regulation of the goods and services in a market lead to price volatility; more regulation, though often onerous, leads to price stability. It might be driven higher, or lower by the regulations - but it's more stable.

DNA2RNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #57 on: February 19, 2018, 07:19:32 AM »
I'd like to pick this thread up as this is a really interesting topic for me. I personally have never invested in any type of real estate at all.

I believe real estate is not for everyone (not for me anyway). I don't like to be a landlord, I don't like to leverage at all, and I don't like the "hey landlord, this is your tenant. My toilette is broken, I don't care it's christmas eve! Come now and fix it or I withhold rent!"-kind of engagement that real estate usually entails.

However, I like to have a piece of the cake somehow. Currently my portfolio consists only of US and Int'l. index funds which do have REITs in them (about 3-4%). But the whole reason I hold the entire world in index funds is that I wanted to own the world. My understanding of this 150 year study is that real estate should be a heavy part of a world-portfolio to represent real weighing of wealth. Did I get this right?

Now how can I achieve this reasonably without holding physical real estate as commodity? Is being heavy on international REITs the answer?

Somehow isn't this the same as saying that you believe in Gold as a holding therefore buy mining companies? My gut feeling says this is the same fallacy.

What do you guys think?

Goldminers are to gold as homebuilders are to homes.  Homebuilders in the US are not REITs,  internationally it is more muddled as real estate companies take a more holistic view, so a company may own a bunch of residential and office towers and also rent out the bottom floors as retail, while developing their next tower.

Yes if you want a true worldwide "index" of income producing assets it would be roughly 60% real estate, 20% bonds, 20% equities/stocks.

Kalergie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #58 on: February 20, 2018, 02:47:29 PM »
Goldminers are to gold as homebuilders are to homes.  Homebuilders in the US are not REITs
Excellent point made. I didn't think of it like that.

,internationally it is more muddled as real estate companies take a more holistic view, so a company may own a bunch of residential and office towers and also rent out the bottom floors as retail, while developing their next tower.

Yes if you want a true worldwide "index" of income producing assets it would be roughly 60% real estate, 20% bonds, 20% equities/stocks.
I think it is difficult to replicate the 60% real estate only with REITs though, am I right?   

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #59 on: February 24, 2018, 02:15:10 PM »
Thanks Brooklunguy.
Would you mind elaborating on this? How exactly do you do this?
I personally employ a passive investment approach in the selection of individual stocks within a geographic market (via purchasing broad stock market index funds in lieu of individual stocks), but I employ an active investment approach in the selection of general asset classes and subclasses in which to invest in the first place.  Compared to the actual global allocation of investable assets, my portfolio's allocation deliberately overweights U.S. stocks relative to non-U.S. stocks, and deliberately overweights, by an extreme margin, stocks in general relative to all other asset classes.

I own one real estate rental unit (the second unit in the duplex in which I live) and otherwise invest essentially all of my money in stocks, with an 80/20 US/foreign allocation.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2018, 04:33:56 PM »
So one important thing to note about volatility when people quote the finding that real estate has about the same return as equity with less volatility:

This paper is defining volatility as the standard deviation of average returns across different years. And by that metric, unleveraged real estate is, indeed, less volatile than stocks. However, while this metric makes sense for stocks because you can easily buy a diversified basket of stocks and be confident you're going to receive approximately the average return for a given year, there is not a great equivalent way to buy a diversified basket of real estate holdings across the entire country or world.*

So while the volatility of average real estate returns across all the different real estate markets in a whole country is relatively low from year to year, in practice it is also important to consider the volatility of real estate returns within a given year across different markets since most unleveraged real estate investors will be holding property in only one or a couple of markets. And I believe the variance across markets -- as opposed to across time -- tends to be quite large for real estate investments.

Anyway, it's a fascinating read, thanks for posting it SeattleCPA.

*As others have discussed, REITs are a very different animal, since they have significant additional management costs, employ a lot of leverage, and as a result have lots of exposure to interest rate risk that is not present in unleveraged real estate and that is at least mitigated for small scale investors buying houses using 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

SeattleCPA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Redmond, WA
    • Evergreen Small Business
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #61 on: February 26, 2018, 06:53:02 AM »
At the start of this thread, @coopdog asked about applying modern portfolio theory thinking to the "Rate of Return on Everything" research results. I've finally had time to develop a first cut at how to do this, think about it, etc.

My thoughts appear here: Lessons from the Rate of Return on Everything paper.

But I think the general conclusion is housing represents a really useful component of one's portfolio. Maybe that means you own your own home, condo, apartment... or maybe it means you go beyond that.

Again, I would encourage anyone who's half interested to read the working paper. If you want just a teaser, you can also skim the first few paragraphs of the above blog post.

Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2018, 07:29:44 AM »
Before getting excited, please note that property taxes aren't compared. You need to subtract property tax from your own calculations. According to the report, that's usually 1%. As an investment property vs. capital gains on stocks, the tax on selling also varies. The results are different for primary homes vs. secondary homes, as the authors point out.

"Taxes When calculating equity and housing returns, we do not account for taxes. From an
investor’s perspective accounting for taxes is clearly important...Additionally, housing tends to be subject to further asset-specific levies in the form of property taxes.
As a ballpark estimate, the impact of property taxes would lower the real estate returns by less
than one percentage point per year relative to equity


Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2018, 07:57:33 AM »
Now if we exclude wartime, which is a major risk, the returns also change. In WW1 housing in Germany dropped 26%, as an average. In the USA, it increased 0.06% compared to equities 0.96%, the point being in War all the scenarios are irrelevant, it can't realistically be planned for. We see this in current Syria, housing and equity valuations are gone. I propose to ignore war effects as the burden is localized to places where damage happens, as the authors suggest.

Ignoring WW1 and WW2 - Stocks yield 9.2%, housing 6.14 (ignoring property tax), Bonds 3.54%.

Upon selling all the above are subject to taxes, on a primary residence its nothing, on the secondary, it's a lot more. The Authors point out that taxes are deductible in the states so the typical 1% tax is likely 0.67%, so housing returns drop to 5.47% on the primary residence. What would a typical gains bill look like on a $300,000 property? On long term holdings, the taxes on stocks/bonds are quite a bit lower and can be sold in smaller chunks to avoid the high tax brackets.

The authors very clearly point out that the returns on primary and secondary properties in the USA will vary precisely because of tax treatment. The results should be tailored to an individual use. Personal tax rates vary,

SeattleCPA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Redmond, WA
    • Evergreen Small Business
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2018, 07:47:10 AM »
Now if we exclude wartime, which is a major risk, the returns also change. In WW1 housing in Germany dropped 26%, as an average. In the USA, it increased 0.06% compared to equities 0.96%, the point being in War all the scenarios are irrelevant, it can't realistically be planned for. We see this in current Syria, housing and equity valuations are gone. I propose to ignore war effects as the burden is localized to places where damage happens, as the authors suggest.

Ignoring WW1 and WW2 - Stocks yield 9.2%, housing 6.14 (ignoring property tax), Bonds 3.54%.

Upon selling all the above are subject to taxes, on a primary residence its nothing, on the secondary, it's a lot more. The Authors point out that taxes are deductible in the states so the typical 1% tax is likely 0.67%, so housing returns drop to 5.47% on the primary residence. What would a typical gains bill look like on a $300,000 property? On long term holdings, the taxes on stocks/bonds are quite a bit lower and can be sold in smaller chunks to avoid the high tax brackets.

The authors very clearly point out that the returns on primary and secondary properties in the USA will vary precisely because of tax treatment. The results should be tailored to an individual use. Personal tax rates vary,

Prairie, I'm not sure we disagree. Or that we strongly disagree. Lots of details to consider if one wants to de-emphasize equities and then allocate a chunk to housing.

The two things that make me think housing deserves serious consideration are the potentially lower standard deviations (minor factor) and then the low correlation (major factor).

And then this comment too: The thing that makes me want to dial down my allocation to equities (especially if I'm probably dialing down my portfolio's standard deviation too) is they appear so expensive .

A final clarifying remark so I don't unintentionally mislead some reader of this comment... for the reasons outline in my blog post, I don't think most people should go hog wild about the real estate. Rather, I'm saying that  equity-centric investors (like I've been for three decades) should probably take a look at the study and then another look at direct real estate investment.


Mr. Boh

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2018, 08:53:38 AM »
At the start of this thread, @coopdog asked about applying modern portfolio theory thinking to the "Rate of Return on Everything" research results. I've finally had time to develop a first cut at how to do this, think about it, etc.

My thoughts appear here: Lessons from the Rate of Return on Everything paper.

But I think the general conclusion is housing represents a really useful component of one's portfolio. Maybe that means you own your own home, condo, apartment... or maybe it means you go beyond that.

Again, I would encourage anyone who's half interested to read the working paper. If you want just a teaser, you can also skim the first few paragraphs of the above blog post.

Excellent blog post. I agree with your conclusions.


Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2018, 09:17:57 AM »
Now if we exclude wartime, which is a major risk, the returns also change. In WW1 housing in Germany dropped 26%, as an average. In the USA, it increased 0.06% compared to equities 0.96%, the point being in War all the scenarios are irrelevant, it can't realistically be planned for. We see this in current Syria, housing and equity valuations are gone. I propose to ignore war effects as the burden is localized to places where damage happens, as the authors suggest.

Ignoring WW1 and WW2 - Stocks yield 9.2%, housing 6.14 (ignoring property tax), Bonds 3.54%.

Upon selling all the above are subject to taxes, on a primary residence its nothing, on the secondary, it's a lot more. The Authors point out that taxes are deductible in the states so the typical 1% tax is likely 0.67%, so housing returns drop to 5.47% on the primary residence. What would a typical gains bill look like on a $300,000 property? On long term holdings, the taxes on stocks/bonds are quite a bit lower and can be sold in smaller chunks to avoid the high tax brackets.

The authors very clearly point out that the returns on primary and secondary properties in the USA will vary precisely because of tax treatment. The results should be tailored to an individual use. Personal tax rates vary,

Prairie, I'm not sure we disagree. Or that we strongly disagree. Lots of details to consider if one wants to de-emphasize equities and then allocate a chunk to housing.

The two things that make me think housing deserves serious consideration are the potentially lower standard deviations (minor factor) and then the low correlation (major factor).

And then this comment too: The thing that makes me want to dial down my allocation to equities (especially if I'm probably dialing down my portfolio's standard deviation too) is they appear so expensive .

A final clarifying remark so I don't unintentionally mislead some reader of this comment... for the reasons outline in my blog post, I don't think most people should go hog wild about the real estate. Rather, I'm saying that  equity-centric investors (like I've been for three decades) should probably take a look at the study and then another look at direct real estate investment.
I'm pretty sure we agree. There really wasn't much in my post beyond regurgitating the numbers.

What I found unsettling in the report is how easy it was to gloss over taxes. They mentioned property tax was omitted since it varies and its hard to address. They also mention capital gains, which is present on secondary properties but not primary property. So an individual will see two different returns, on neighbouring houses they own, based on residency status. I'm from Canada so I struggle a little with US tax rules, but I understand you could lose a good chunk of a house if you hold it for 20 years (a $100K house purchased in 2015 sold in 2035 could easily gain $400k if the numbers are accurate).

Lets make a case study using a  houses purchased in 2015. Assume property tax is 0.6% after deducting it (1% prior to tax deduction). Assume rate of growth on the house of 6.14%, non war growth. In 2035 if I sell, based on current gains tax, what would be my net after tax return? Assume a household income of $60k. Then compare purchasing bonds and selling tranches at 2 year intervals to avoid the gains tax and reinvesting. How much better will the house perform vs bonds after tax?

Feel free to adjust the scenario, lets make it generic for a broad swath of people. I'm looking to understand this better, what better way then run a case study? Perhaps I'm in the wrong and didn't understand the report, perhaps I'm right and we should investigate this farther.

When I run the scenario (for my own taxes, not applicable to US), using the 6.14% non wartime, I get an after tax return of 5.1%.

The biggest problem is that all the gains are paid in a single year, instead of bonds or stocks where you can spread out capital gains to hit lower tax brackets.

We're not disagreeing at all, we're helping each other understand this better. If anyone is going to do this, its important to understand it completely.

CorpRaider

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 442
    • The Corpraider Blog
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #67 on: March 07, 2018, 09:31:38 AM »
Saw this paper.  Not sure how to reconcile with Shiller's work.  Guess this non Shiller paper includes more markets (several of which equities went to zero while housing at least muddled though...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/business/why-home-prices-change-or-dont.html

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #68 on: March 07, 2018, 11:16:38 AM »
Saw this paper.  Not sure how to reconcile with Shiller's work.  Guess this non Shiller paper includes more markets (several of which equities went to zero while housing at least muddled though...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/business/why-home-prices-change-or-dont.html

I think one big difference is that in the paper at the top of the thread they are looking at the total returns of housing (which would include rent), and the work being referenced in that nytimes article sounds like it is looking only at price appreciation of the house.

So the profit from real estate investments when looking at many markers over more than a century may come mostly from "dividends" (rent), rather than "capital gains" (price appreciation in excess of inflation).

DNA2RNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #69 on: July 28, 2022, 11:09:17 AM »
Just wanted to bump this thread as we are about 5 years and a global pandemic later.

Unlevered housing has been my best performing asset with the least volitility over the last 5 years.

VNQI (International Real Estate ETF) has been my worst performing asset with quite a bit of volatility (lots of office space in here which isn't doing well during the pandemic for obvious reasons)

Bonds have shown a lot less diversification benefits and much higher volitility than many thought possible so I would have to say the original thesis (Optimal portfolio includes lots of global housing, some stocks and almost no bonds) is holding up quite well still.

Any thoughts?

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4815
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #70 on: July 28, 2022, 12:38:43 PM »
It looks like institutional investors have now jumped on the RE bandwagon buying up tens of thousands of properties and wringing out the last of the easy gains available, using their proprietary algorithms and whatnot.  I’m sure individuals can still find a deal with a lot of work and local knowledge, but I’m just not that person.  Interesting thread though, very timely considering all the liquidity looking for one last safe haven from inflation…

SeattleCPA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Redmond, WA
    • Evergreen Small Business
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #71 on: July 30, 2022, 04:50:29 PM »
Just wanted to bump this thread as we are about 5 years and a global pandemic later.

Unlevered housing has been my best performing asset with the least volitility over the last 5 years.

VNQI (International Real Estate ETF) has been my worst performing asset with quite a bit of volatility (lots of office space in here which isn't doing well during the pandemic for obvious reasons)

Bonds have shown a lot less diversification benefits and much higher volitility than many thought possible so I would have to say the original thesis (Optimal portfolio includes lots of global housing, some stocks and almost no bonds) is holding up quite well still.

Any thoughts?

So this wasn't the principal intention, but I am pretty sure the directly-owned realty on my balance sheet has more than inoculated me from the recent stock market declines and also the inflation... but to be accurate, that's only so far ...

The one thing it's been interesting to see, though, is how real estate has protected people against inflation in rents. We've all obviously seen some of the forum members who rent get slammed by rent increases.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4815
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #72 on: July 31, 2022, 02:43:59 PM »
Just wanted to bump this thread as we are about 5 years and a global pandemic later.

Unlevered housing has been my best performing asset with the least volitility over the last 5 years.

VNQI (International Real Estate ETF) has been my worst performing asset with quite a bit of volatility (lots of office space in here which isn't doing well during the pandemic for obvious reasons)

Bonds have shown a lot less diversification benefits and much higher volitility than many thought possible so I would have to say the original thesis (Optimal portfolio includes lots of global housing, some stocks and almost no bonds) is holding up quite well still.

Any thoughts?

So this wasn't the principal intention, but I am pretty sure the directly-owned realty on my balance sheet has more than inoculated me from the recent stock market declines and also the inflation... but to be accurate, that's only so far ...

The one thing it's been interesting to see, though, is how real estate has protected people against inflation in rents. We've all obviously seen some of the forum members who rent get slammed by rent increases.

A few observations on unlevered real estate vs. equities...  My real estate now costs more to hold (property taxes, inflated maintenance and utility costs), whereas equities cost the same amount to hold virtually irrespective of value (maybe had to pay a bit more tax because dividend income increased, but result is still a net income increase).  Selling real estate has a large cost and I'd still need a place to live, which would now cost more.  Increased imputed rent does not improve my quality of life...

So while I understand fundamentally that real estate is a nice diversification on my balance sheet, its value increasing does not contribute directly to improving my quality of life the same way as equities have over the past decade.  From my understanding, adding a vacation home would be even less efficient.  I'm watching things like real estate crowdfunding to see if that's a good place for us non-landlords to get more real estate exposure.

Midwest_Handlebar

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #73 on: July 31, 2022, 03:18:56 PM »
It's not necessarily the appreciation that brings the most value for real estate investing, but the cash flow. Next year I should be able to increase my cash flow to ~$55k/year (tax free using depreciation) with a $782k investment, or a 7% unlevered return. Using equities, and the 4% safe withdraw rule I would have needed $1,375k to produce the same amount of reliable cash flow using the stock market. This is nearly $600k that I didn't have to save for retirement. I also have a similar amount in equities for long term growth.

I really don't care if my real estate appreciates as long as rents keep up with inflation.

SeattleCPA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Redmond, WA
    • Evergreen Small Business
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #74 on: July 31, 2022, 04:02:09 PM »

So while I understand fundamentally that real estate is a nice diversification on my balance sheet, its value increasing does not contribute directly to improving my quality of life the same way as equities have over the past decade.  From my understanding, adding a vacation home would be even less efficient.  I'm watching things like real estate crowdfunding to see if that's a good place for us non-landlords to get more real estate exposure.

I guess I'm just saying, hypothetically, that if your stocks decrease in value by say $500K over last couple of years and your real estate over roughly same timeframe increases by a couple of hundred thousand, that makes a difference.

BTW agree that it makes a difference whether the real estate is home you're occupying, second home or rental.

Mr. Boh

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #75 on: July 31, 2022, 04:53:13 PM »
Just wanted to bump this thread as we are about 5 years and a global pandemic later.

Unlevered housing has been my best performing asset with the least volitility over the last 5 years.

VNQI (International Real Estate ETF) has been my worst performing asset with quite a bit of volatility (lots of office space in here which isn't doing well during the pandemic for obvious reasons)

Bonds have shown a lot less diversification benefits and much higher volitility than many thought possible so I would have to say the original thesis (Optimal portfolio includes lots of global housing, some stocks and almost no bonds) is holding up quite well still.

Any thoughts?

I'm happy to see this thread live on. I'm even happier that I chose to own real estate rather than REITs or bonds!

SilentC

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 176
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #76 on: July 31, 2022, 07:41:35 PM »
I don’t think their methodology for measurement is highly accurate or takes into account fully the changes in housing stock, like how homes nowadays are significantly larger in the US than they were in the ‘20s.  That said RE has been a strong investment class but requires a lot of work where vanguard requires no work.

DNA2RNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #77 on: August 01, 2022, 09:01:09 AM »
It looks like institutional investors have now jumped on the RE bandwagon buying up tens of thousands of properties and wringing out the last of the easy gains available, using their proprietary algorithms and whatnot.  I’m sure individuals can still find a deal with a lot of work and local knowledge, but I’m just not that person.  Interesting thread though, very timely considering all the liquidity looking for one last safe haven from inflation…

I actually thought one of the best arguments against the study was the lack of any institutional money below the 100s of units apartment properties.  How would that be possible in an even somewhat efficient market?  But I live in one of, if not the biggest market for the institutions buying 1 unit properties and I can tell you it hasn't really let up since 2011, besides a couple year lull in the middle of the 2010s.  If BlackStone goes big into your business there is something there imo.

DNA2RNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #78 on: August 01, 2022, 09:39:17 AM »
I don’t think their methodology for measurement is highly accurate or takes into account fully the changes in housing stock, like how homes nowadays are significantly larger in the US than they were in the ‘20s.  That said RE has been a strong investment class but requires a lot of work where vanguard requires no work.

They use chain-linked resale data which does account for the changes, so long as there are some of the larger new homes being resold.  I can't imagine a more highly accurate measurement.

Housing REITs don't take any work.

DNA2RNA

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #79 on: August 01, 2022, 09:46:40 AM »
Just wanted to bump this thread as we are about 5 years and a global pandemic later.

Unlevered housing has been my best performing asset with the least volitility over the last 5 years.

VNQI (International Real Estate ETF) has been my worst performing asset with quite a bit of volatility (lots of office space in here which isn't doing well during the pandemic for obvious reasons)

Bonds have shown a lot less diversification benefits and much higher volitility than many thought possible so I would have to say the original thesis (Optimal portfolio includes lots of global housing, some stocks and almost no bonds) is holding up quite well still.

Any thoughts?

So this wasn't the principal intention, but I am pretty sure the directly-owned realty on my balance sheet has more than inoculated me from the recent stock market declines and also the inflation... but to be accurate, that's only so far ...

The one thing it's been interesting to see, though, is how real estate has protected people against inflation in rents. We've all obviously seen some of the forum members who rent get slammed by rent increases.

Yep almost exactly as was implied by you in the OP.  So far.....so good.

Re Inflation and rents:  I have a unit that I could barely rent for $600/mo when I bought it in 2010 and had 4 applications the first day on market at $1550/mo back in May. 

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4815
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #80 on: August 01, 2022, 11:52:37 AM »
It looks like institutional investors have now jumped on the RE bandwagon buying up tens of thousands of properties and wringing out the last of the easy gains available, using their proprietary algorithms and whatnot.  I’m sure individuals can still find a deal with a lot of work and local knowledge, but I’m just not that person.  Interesting thread though, very timely considering all the liquidity looking for one last safe haven from inflation…

I actually thought one of the best arguments against the study was the lack of any institutional money below the 100s of units apartment properties.  How would that be possible in an even somewhat efficient market?  But I live in one of, if not the biggest market for the institutions buying 1 unit properties and I can tell you it hasn't really let up since 2011, besides a couple year lull in the middle of the 2010s. If BlackStone goes big into your business there is something there imo.

Yeah, Houston real estate went bonkers these last couple years.  My home value is up over 50% based on sales of comparable homes in my neighborhood, and the tax appraisal is fortunately limited to 10% maximum taxable value increase per year, but will cost me a lot more in the coming years if this holds.

I just worry that, as quickly as institutional investors swept in to the market and created gains, they will similarly exit the market in a disorganized fashion and the market will crater.  The last thing banks and institutional investors want is to carry underwater real estate, so once the selling gets going it could be ugly.

It hasn't even been that great for the neighbors that sold and banked hundreds of thousands in capital gains, because they are paying more than expected for their next home as well as facing increased financing costs...  And then there are the sad stories of people feeling entirely priced out of the market, having sold too quickly for a 10% gain only to have the house they want run away from them as prices and bidding were nuts and loan rates are over 5%.  For an extra kick in the nuts, their rental costs are going up too!

It's been a banner two years for realtors though!  Easy money with homes receiving multiple bids and selling within days...

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6659
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Rate of Return on Everything: A 150-year History
« Reply #81 on: August 22, 2022, 11:22:57 AM »
I don’t think their methodology for measurement is highly accurate or takes into account fully the changes in housing stock, like how homes nowadays are significantly larger in the US than they were in the ‘20s.  That said RE has been a strong investment class but requires a lot of work where vanguard requires no work.

They use chain-linked resale data which does account for the changes, so long as there are some of the larger new homes being resold.  I can't imagine a more highly accurate measurement.

Housing REITs don't take any work.

I have doubts that the RE numbers from the past account for the various elbow grease and spreadsheet work landlords must do. If all you know about a RE investment is the purchase price, sale price, and rents earned, that's not enough information to estimate the ROI. It also can't possibly account for the work done by small-time landlords fixing holes in walls, ripping out pee-stained carpet, mowing the grass during vacancy, evicting people, figuring out taxes, etc. An apples-to-apples comparison of RE with passive investments would deduct the cash value of all this labor from the return. If everything was done with corporate-level efficiency, you'd have.... the returns of REITs.

Similarly, if a would-be RE investor decided to buy REITs instead of physical RE, and decided to get a part-time job with all the hours saved by not being a landlord, you'd expect them to come out with similar total returns from the investment plus the job. Otherwise there's be a market inefficiency for people to arbitrage. Either landlords should sell their properties, invest in REITs and get jobs, or people in REITs should sell their shares and become landlords.

Maybe an arbitrage does exist in the form of property depreciation on paper, but thanks to elbow grease landlord labor the property doesn't depreciate in physical reality. Thus the value of landlords' labor gets deferred taxation, because the taxes on the value produced by that labor are are only due when the landlord sells for far above the depreciated value.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!