4 ms·

"You’re not only getting housing, but you also have an asset that you control that appreciates in value year over year." This should read: "You’re not only ge

"You’re not only getting housing, but you also have an asset that you control that appreciates in value year over year." This should read: "You’re not only getting housing, but you also have an asset that you control that _changes_ in value year over year."

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Outside of a few rare events, real estate has reliably appreciated historically. Like any investment, certain geographies have seen a decline in value, but overall it is as good, if not better, than equities as an appreciating asset depending on your investment objectives.
- Jabbles 6y ago
  > overall it is as good, if not better, than equities as an appreciating asset This directly contradicts the article, so please cite your sources.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ms28533.pdf https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ms28533.... (The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015) Pages 3-4 specifically, but the whole paper is excellent. RE has returns that are reasonably (imho) similar to securities over the long term, low volatility, and you need to live somewhere (although you might see greater returns in the capital markets depending on your entry/exit points [1] and risk tolerance). I’d caution that recent equities returns are very likely an outlier, part central bank easing, part yield chasing, part unsophisticated money, and arguably unsustainable. [1] http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/...
    - Jabbles 6y ago
      Thanks - it's very interesting that it seems to be completely opposite the article: > Housing market returns are very bad. Between 1948 and 2004 the real increase in value in the U.S real estate market was less than 1% a year. Perhaps you or someone else can point to the source of the discrepancy?
avmich 6y ago
> that _changes_ in value Of course, we can also mention that overall those changes less than growth of S&P, that you pay taxes for that (not for growth, for value) and that you're bound to spend a non-insignificant amount on supporting that asset. Tax and maintenance - and maybe insurance - are all eating from the value of the asset.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Outside of a few rare events, real estate has reliably appreciated historically. Like any investment, certain geographies have seen a decline in value, but overall it is as good, if not better, than equities as an appreciating asset depending on your investment objectives.

Jabbles 6y ago
> overall it is as good, if not better, than equities as an appreciating asset This directly contradicts the article, so please cite your sources.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ms28533.pdf https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ms28533.... (The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015) Pages 3-4 specifically, but the whole paper is excellent. RE has returns that are reasonably (imho) similar to securities over the long term, low volatility, and you need to live somewhere (although you might see greater returns in the capital markets depending on your entry/exit points [1] and risk tolerance). I’d caution that recent equities returns are very likely an outlier, part central bank easing, part yield chasing, part unsophisticated money, and arguably unsustainable. [1] http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/...
  - Jabbles 6y ago
    Thanks - it's very interesting that it seems to be completely opposite the article: > Housing market returns are very bad. Between 1948 and 2004 the real increase in value in the U.S real estate market was less than 1% a year. Perhaps you or someone else can point to the source of the discrepancy?

avmich 6y ago

> that _changes_ in value Of course, we can also mention that overall those changes less than growth of S&P, that you pay taxes for that (not for growth, for value) and that you're bound to spend a non-insignificant amount on supporting that asset. Tax and maintenance - and maybe insurance - are all eating from the value of the asset.