Can real estate be a good investment for an individual even when it is a bad investment overall?
Robert Shiller purports to explain “Why Land and Homes Actually Tend to Be Disappointing Investments” (nytimes). Given the number of rich people wandering around who say that they made their money in real estate, I’m wondering if Shiller can be correct. What do readers think? Suppose that the rent on a commercial property covers the mortgage and other expenses. In that case 1 percent appreciation will become 10 percent per year if buyer has made a down payment of 10 percent and used leverage for the rest. Suppose that Shiller is right about the average but it is a volatile market and the buyer typically unloads any big losses onto a bank while keeping any big winnings?
Maybe real estate is a bad investment if bought for cash and then left to sit. But an individual real estate investor is probably not doing things that way. There will be a mortgage and the bank will take on much of the risk. If it is a commercial property there is rent received. If it is a residential property in which the buyer lives there will be rent not paid somewhere else.
At a wedding in Paris this summer the groom’s father chided the “boy” (over 30!) for not being a property owner. The dad talked about how, even with an entry-level job at an investment bank in London he had been able to purchase a flat while still in his 20s. We dug into this a little and found out that the flat and the entry-level jobs were still available and easy to price. The dad paid a little less than one year of pre-tax income for the flat. Today the same flat would cost nearly 20 years of income for an entry level banker. With that kind of appreciation in any of the places around the world where a person might actually want to live, how can Shiller be right? And with the world population continuing to grow while the number of desirable places to live remains relatively fixed, how can Shiller continue to be right? (It is possible that, compared to 1900, the U.S. actually has fewer neighborhoods where people can walk to shops, friends’ houses, social events, cultural events, essential services, etc., yet the population has grown from 76 million to 320 million. This has got to put price pressure on real estate in the handful of desirable neighborhoods, no?)
Related:
- “Universities and Economic Growth” (see the minute-by-minute analysis of an Econ 252 lecture by Shiller)
Full post, including comments