[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case–Shiller_index#/media/File...
ETA: I wonder why this is such a common belief? Is it because most HN (myself included) readers live in booming real-estate markets like NYC and SF? Those markets have done very well in the past 10 years. But remember: places like Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago, and Cleveland also exist.
An actual high yield savings account right now gives around 2% nominal interest which is less than inflation.
The economist chart of house prices from the article certainly seems to show them outpacing inflation recently. Looking at an index since 1900 is a bit misleading since public policy changed dramatically in the 1950s-70s to constrict supply and juice demand.
The inflation rate in 2019 was 1.76% [1]
> The economist chart of house prices from the article certainly seems to show them outpacing inflation recently. Looking at an index since 1900 is a bit misleading since public policy changed dramatically in the 1950s-70s to constrict supply and juice demand.
Ok, then look at it from 1970... The results are even worse
Every coping strategy has it's limit. You can't commute more hours than there are in the day. YOu can't have more than 3 people living per room (at least not legally). Once you move in with your parents, you can't do it again. etc. I think we've reached that limit in the bayarea (at least the core bay area) so we can look forward to housing returns of roughly inflation.
Even with the severe dystopian restriction on supply, it will just force more and more people out of the bay area.
Maybe some of the outskirt areas still have room to go up, like Tracy, antioch, brentwood, etc. some of those places haven't yet been gentrified.
Why do you think houses are going for 2 m$ in the bay area? Because the expectation that it goes up is already priced in. Also a good reminder that the return of the past are not an indication of future returns.
Buying in the bay area is de facto a speculative investment as rents are comparatively way cheaper. The only incentive for buying at those prices is the hope to sell it for even more to someone else later (see also, the greatest fool theory).
Housing in SF was pretty much flat from 1990-1998. It went down by ~30% in 2008 and took 10 years to match the peak in 2006.
As others point out, houses can be easily setup in and around the metros to give a steady 3% return not including appreciation. Considering dense living is the future and the house will materially remain through a market downturn, why wouldn't you diversify your portfolio with a few?
FWIW, broad-market index funds hold REITS, which give you a market-weighted chunk of the RE market. No need to "diversify" into RE. Doing so only skews your portfolio to be overweight in RE.
Housing is NOT always a good investment from an economic perspective. It depends on the location, market events and most importantly what price you bought it at.
Sure, agreed, but let's think that through a minute. So your housing has 'only' beaten inflation by ~25%, and that if you sold it today, you would have 'only' gotten 7 years of effectively-rent-free living?
Imagine if you had actually had to rent a house during that time. I don't know what rates are in NJ, but you would have spent about $1200/month in rent (or ~$100k over 7 years) to have done something like that in Michigan.
The common "bad" scenario I hear about is one like yours, where you got 7 years of housing, and the appreciation "only" covered almost all of that maintenance/upkeep, but didn't also cut you a free-money bonus check on top of it.
That's where the "housing is always a good investment" line comes from. Yes, you had to take out a loan and front all the other money out-of-pocket yourself (and not everyone can afford to do that). But if you get it most-to-all of it back when you sell the house, then even in your "bad" example, you came out ~$100,000 ahead of any regular person who had not owned.
But yes, if you are wealthy enough to afford a 20% downpayment on a house, you are wealthy enough to potentially have opportunity costs from other investments at your disposal. Agreed.
So essentially, it is a HELOC. But it's at the same rate as your home loan, which is usually quite a lot lower than the margin rate if you borrowed to buy shares. Of course, this offset loan cannot go higher than the equity you've already paid back, so unlike a margin loan (which can go up to 10x!?).
So they are able to afford what they normally can't afford because of the tool (i.e., lower down payment) which helped make homes unaffordable.
Not in NJ. Property taxes quickly eliminate any illusion of free. Factor in maintenance, including time, and you're barely breaking even.
Owning provides a sense of stability and community. But investment in many areas is highly overrated.
It’s a very idiosyncratic risk you’re taking buying a home. Looking at a primary residence as an investment is silly in my opinion. Treating it as consumption makes more sense.
Where? In high demand areas? Sure. Supply is limited in NYC or SF. But those areas are becoming outliers where buying in (so to speak) is less available.
Or what about trying to sell in 2009 or 2010? People weren't foreclosing because they were in the black.
I wish. The problem with housing is that the returns are not low, they're reasonably high and really safe.
You can buy a property in basically any city, sit on it for 5-30 years, and be guaranteed to beat inflation by at least a small margin -- often a wide one. Sometimes this is true, even if you never maintain the place, even if you level the existing structure, and it's just an empty grass lot.
I wish housing was not a good investment. If housing could depreciate the way a car does, that alone would solve like 40% all problems in the housing market today.