Wouldn't ROA (return on asset) be the appropriate metric? For example, a house worth $500,000, with a 5% ROA, would need to net $25,000 a year. Assuming expens

Wouldn't ROA (return on asset) be the appropriate metric? For example, a house worth $500,000, with a 5% ROA, would need to net $25,000 a year. Assuming expenses are 1% of the value, you would need to charge $2,500 monthly rent, to get a 5% ROA. The question is then, how does that ROA compare to other options? That answer to that question determines whether the house is overvalued.