3 ms·
> overall it is as good, if not better, than equities as an appreciating asset This directly contradicts the article, so please cite your sources.
by 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 agohttps://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 agoThanks - 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?