4 ms·

> Housing can be affordable or it can be a good investment. Not both. Not for long. This isn't really true. Suppose that housing is extremely affordable. Cost

> Housing can be affordable or it can be a good investment. Not both. Not for long. This isn't really true. Suppose that housing is extremely affordable. Cost is only the construction cost, no scarcity component, and construction costs haven't been bureaucratically inflated. You get a house for $25,000. Then local rents are low, but they're not zero, because they'd still have to yield a return consistent with a $25,000 investment. Rents in that case are a lot lower than they would be if they had to yield a return consistent with a $500,000 investment, but the ROI is the same. It's just that if you invest $500,000 in housing you'd get 20 units and then e.g. rent them each for $250 (so $5000 in total) instead of paying the same amount for one unit and renting the one unit out for $5000. And it's not different if you live in it because living in it is an opportunity cost. In fact, the higher price is worse for you if you live in it, because then you're losing the much higher value of the imputed rent. Suppose you can get a loan for $500,000 and you want to invest that in housing. If that's the price of one unit and you live in it, you have to pay the whole mortgage out of your pocket and get $0 in rental income. If that's the price of 20 units, you live in one (which costs you $250/mo in opportunity cost) and then rent out the other 19 and get $4750 in rent every month you get to stick in your pocket.

anonymoushn 2y ago
"Housing is a good investment" means the price of the land and house increases over time compared to SPX or treasuries or whatever.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  "Housing is a good investment" means that the total returns from investing in housing are competitive with the risk-adjusted returns of the overall market. The returns from an investment include both capital gains and dividends. For example, there are stocks that never pay dividends, but might still be a good investment if the stock price increases. There are other stocks that only hold their value, but pay higher dividends, and those could have the exact same total returns. In the case of housing, rent or imputed rent is a dividend. If you get $250/mo in [imputed] rent on a $25,000 investment, or $5000/mo on a $500,000 investment, that's 12% annually. That's a good investment even if the sale value of the property remains flat.
  - BirdieNZ 2y ago
    The sale value won't stay flat unless you tax land (or use leasehold like Singapore), because typically incomes rise, and in most places the rate of building new housing has an equilibrium lower than the rate of demand, because profit is needed for private developments to go ahead. This results in a) higher incomes, and b) higher rents, because landlords can extract some of the increase in income, because tenants don't have enough alternatives to keep the rents low. Capital value of property is a function of rents, so increases in rents result in increases in sale value of the property.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > The sale value won't stay flat unless you tax land (or use leasehold like Singapore), because typically incomes rise, and in most places the rate of building new housing has an equilibrium lower than the rate of demand, because profit is needed for private developments to go ahead. Developments can be profitable without the price per unit significantly increasing. Suppose that an existing unit is $50,000 and it costs $150,000 in construction costs including profit to replace one unit with four. Then you have a stable equilibrium; a construction company could buy one unit for $50,000, convert it into four, sell them for $50,000 each and net $150,000 which covers their costs and profit. They'll stop doing this if the price per unit falls to $45,000. They'll start doing it again if the price per unit rises to $60,000 and keep doing it until it gets back down below $50,000. Therefore, the price per unit remains stable at ~$50,000, even if demand increases, because that just triggers more construction as the price temporarily gets slightly above the breakeven point. This is why zoning restrictions cause housing costs to increase. If you declare that 95% of the land is zoned exclusively for single-family homes, you can't replace one unit with four or even two in any of those areas. Then the remaining 5% of the land already has a 20-unit complex on it and in order to add units, you have to replace it with a 30-unit complex. Taller buildings require more expensive materials, you've had to demolish 20 units instead of one and only increased the number of units by 50% instead of 300% and land on which you can even do this at all is now more scarce so you're paying even more per unit for the ones you're going to demolish. Now the breakeven price for new construction is $500,000/unit and if growth continues it has to rise to the level that can cover the cost of demolishing a 30-unit building to build a 40-unit one, even though 95% of the local land is still single family homes.
rocqua 2y ago
Housing as an investment here references the idea of owning the home you live in being a great source of capital gains. This depends wholely on appreciating value, which is orthogonal to affordability. The reason people care about this type of 'housing as an investment' is that it helps sell people on high mortgages, so more people can own rather than rent. It doesn't quite work out well, except for the banks and pre-existing home owners. And it's a plausible enough story. They might believe it themselves.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Housing as an investment here references the idea of owning the home you live in being a great source of capital gains. But why would you even want that? Possibility 1: You want to invest $500k in housing, and live in one unit. You get one unit, pay the entire $500k plus interest yourself, receive no rent other than imputed rent, and then can't sell at the end because even if your property is now with $1M if you sell you get a huge capital gains tax bill while still needing somewhere to live, so your "investment" has left you stuck in a place where you can't afford to move because the capital gains tax would prevent you from selling your house and buying an equivalent one, or even selling it for a smaller one at a profit because the difference in their values is lost to tax. Possibility 2: You invest $500k in housing, get multiple units for that price, live in one of them, receive rents from other tenants that compensate for a lack of capital gains while holding an asset with a stable value, can easily move out of your own unit because you're not trapped by capital gains tax. Possibility 3: You have $500k to invest, put $25k into a house for yourself and receive the small imputed rent, put the other $475k into an ordinary investment fund because you don't actually like investing all your assets solely in real estate. You now have a more diversified investment portfolio that isn't heavily exposed to volatility in the local housing market, are still getting the market rate of return, are getting actual returns from the ordinary market instead of paying a huge amount in imputed rent and once again aren't trapped by capital gains tax if you ever want to move house. The first one is clearly the worst one. > The reason people care about this type of 'housing as an investment' is that it helps sell people on high mortgages, so more people can own rather than rent. High mortgages are the counterargument. If you were taking out a $25,000 mortgage, that could be a good investment even if the value never goes up, because you get a place to live, and are insulated from (and indeed benefit from) potential increases in local real estate if there were any. If you're taking out a $500,000 mortgage for one unit, the imputed rent could be the same percentage of the investment if local rents are high, but now the potential upside is blunted and replaced with risk of value loss because you're buying high instead of buying low. That's a bad investment -- you're getting the same percentage ROI in terms of imputed rent while exposing yourself to the risk of a housing crash with a disproportionate share of your net worth in an undiversified investment, and further increases in value are long-term unsupportable by local wages. And if you're talking about a matter of policy (we want to encourage home ownership) then there are obviously more people who would qualify for a $25,000 or $100,000 mortgage than a $500,000 one. Even for the smaller number of people who could make the payments on $500k, you don't have to convince them to take out a huge mortgage if you can supply them with the same house with a smaller mortgage.
smallmancontrov 2y ago
Housing services aren't the problem, capital gains are. You know this. You are nitpicking. But if you ever find a portal to the alternate dimension you describe, please give me a ping, I'd love to live there.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Housing services aren't the problem, capital gains are. You know this. You are nitpicking. Rents and imputed rents are definitely part of investment returns, and you can have a "good investment" where the returns are entirely in the form of [imputed] rents/dividends and not at all in the form of capital gains.
financetechbro 2y ago
Your example is nonsensical. This is not how the real world works, living in hypotheticals doesn’t help anybody. Also quite literally the meaning of a good investment is “it goes up and to the right” and anything that goes up and to the right in perpetuity is bound to become unaffordable if the wages or wealth of the buyers doesn’t increase at the same rate as the asset. The housing market is a Ponzi scheme propped up by governments. But that’s a topic for another conversation.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Also quite literally the meaning of a good investment is “it goes up and to the right” and anything that goes up and to the right in perpetuity is bound to become unaffordable if the wages or wealth of the buyers doesn’t increase at the same rate as the asset. I feel like you're just not understanding the math. Suppose you want to invest in real estate, but property values are low and stable, zero capital gains. You invest $500,000 in twenty $25,000 units, rent them out and receive $250/mo each in net profit, $3000/year in gains/unit, 20 units, $60,000/year in total gains. Then you invest the $60,000 back into real estate, so now you have $560,000 in housing and next year you collect $67,200/year in gains from renting them, which you invest back into real estate, so then you have $627k in assets. Number chart goes up and to the right, even though the price per unit hasn't moved. It's not different for homeowners. If you buy a house -- it doesn't matter if it's $25,000 or $500,000 -- you no longer have to pay rent to somebody else. Whatever you used to be paying in rent, now you get to keep. You can invest that in more real estate or in stocks or whatever you want, but by buying a house to live in, you have a return in terms of imputed rent regardless of whether the value of the house goes up.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    The difference you’re not accounting for is that when someone buys a house, in practice they value it as an asset that must increase in value, not simply as a way to offset rent costs, which is effectively what you’re saying. Thats the real problem. People believe their 500K house must go up in value and not fluctuate in value like any other marketplace of goods would see, and therefore are in opposition to anything that reduces the value of the home in which they live. That’s why homeowners routinely bend over backwards to maintain home values. The general consensus society has is it’s one of the primary nest egg assets, and for many it’s their biggest one and they act in that self interest. Real estate lacks the functioning market dynamics you see in every other area of economic activity, in part because we have collectively as a society decided long ago to adopt policies that would enshrine protecting home values above other concerns. Edit: This also captures capital in an unproductive manner because real estate doesn’t have functioning market dynamics. Imagine instead of having ever increasing real estate costs (the reality of todays world) which benefit only a finite fraction of economic investment but make up a huge total of the average persons expenses, that productivity gains could instead be captured by other investments like stocks. You’d have more people able to invest in companies, meaning there well could be more companies to invest in, increasing the health of other markets in turn. People will put their money somewhere and naturally a productive business is one such place afterall Instead, one of life’s biggest overall expenses not only increases over time in aggregate but the value is captured by an fraction of the population of that increase, which is really a net loss to economic activity more broadly
ForTheKidz 2y ago
Putting aside rent (which should be illegal IMO outside of rent to own—it just makes no sense as a social construct if you want to fight poverty instead of create it) the idea of an affordable investment is just bonkers. Any investment market necessarily precludes the idea of affordable entry or they wouldn't make good investments—the longer term you look at, the more this is true. We also can't force developers to build. This is a major problem in cities: they budget for housing that's supposed to come online but there's no (general, broad, accepted) way to penalize developers for failing to follow through. Public housing or bust, IMO. The housing market has failed this country for too many decades to trust it to suddenly start irrationally acting in our best collective interests with older generations selflessly sacrificing their retirements to not fuck over their grandchildren.
- worik 2y ago
  > Putting aside rent (which should be illegal IMO outside of rent to own—it just makes no sense as a social construct I understand the sentiment. But many people at many stages of their lives do not want to be owning g property, so some rental properties make plenty of sense as a social construct But. The current situation where the poorest third give most of their income to the richest third of the population is manifestly unjust and is a blight on our society It is enough to give capitalism a bad name
  - ForTheKidz 2y ago
    Hell, I don't want to own property right now as I'm in a transitional form in my life. I pay too much for what I get out of my current apartment and I'm looking to downsize/chuck amenities away. Trust me, I'm happy to not have to maintain my plumbing or HVAC and while the ikea-quality hardware is ugly and cheap feeling, it's not my problem. It hurts, but I know that I'm not up to the task of maintaining a house and it would cost me more than rent to hire someone else to do it for me + property taxes + mortgage + actual material costs of maintenance. But if you want to solve homelessness, like actually try to remove it as a necessary reality of modern life (as many other capitalist AND socialist countries have successfully achieved), we fundamentally can't get there through mortgages and rents. I'm happy that people are more literate about housing policy than ever, but I think we can aim for more than marginally more affordable housing—we can completely defeat homelessness if we have the will to do so and don't have a dogmatic fear of subsidized housing destroying the value of the asset you'll leverage to retire on (if you're lucky). Sadly, I suspect we'll see a lot more homelessness before people who legitimately have any of their interests at heart enter power.

anonymoushn 2y ago

"Housing is a good investment" means the price of the land and house increases over time compared to SPX or treasuries or whatever.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
"Housing is a good investment" means that the total returns from investing in housing are competitive with the risk-adjusted returns of the overall market. The returns from an investment include both capital gains and dividends. For example, there are stocks that never pay dividends, but might still be a good investment if the stock price increases. There are other stocks that only hold their value, but pay higher dividends, and those could have the exact same total returns. In the case of housing, rent or imputed rent is a dividend. If you get $250/mo in [imputed] rent on a $25,000 investment, or $5000/mo on a $500,000 investment, that's 12% annually. That's a good investment even if the sale value of the property remains flat.
- BirdieNZ 2y ago
  The sale value won't stay flat unless you tax land (or use leasehold like Singapore), because typically incomes rise, and in most places the rate of building new housing has an equilibrium lower than the rate of demand, because profit is needed for private developments to go ahead. This results in a) higher incomes, and b) higher rents, because landlords can extract some of the increase in income, because tenants don't have enough alternatives to keep the rents low. Capital value of property is a function of rents, so increases in rents result in increases in sale value of the property.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > The sale value won't stay flat unless you tax land (or use leasehold like Singapore), because typically incomes rise, and in most places the rate of building new housing has an equilibrium lower than the rate of demand, because profit is needed for private developments to go ahead. Developments can be profitable without the price per unit significantly increasing. Suppose that an existing unit is $50,000 and it costs $150,000 in construction costs including profit to replace one unit with four. Then you have a stable equilibrium; a construction company could buy one unit for $50,000, convert it into four, sell them for $50,000 each and net $150,000 which covers their costs and profit. They'll stop doing this if the price per unit falls to $45,000. They'll start doing it again if the price per unit rises to $60,000 and keep doing it until it gets back down below $50,000. Therefore, the price per unit remains stable at ~$50,000, even if demand increases, because that just triggers more construction as the price temporarily gets slightly above the breakeven point. This is why zoning restrictions cause housing costs to increase. If you declare that 95% of the land is zoned exclusively for single-family homes, you can't replace one unit with four or even two in any of those areas. Then the remaining 5% of the land already has a 20-unit complex on it and in order to add units, you have to replace it with a 30-unit complex. Taller buildings require more expensive materials, you've had to demolish 20 units instead of one and only increased the number of units by 50% instead of 300% and land on which you can even do this at all is now more scarce so you're paying even more per unit for the ones you're going to demolish. Now the breakeven price for new construction is $500,000/unit and if growth continues it has to rise to the level that can cover the cost of demolishing a 30-unit building to build a 40-unit one, even though 95% of the local land is still single family homes.

rocqua 2y ago

Housing as an investment here references the idea of owning the home you live in being a great source of capital gains. This depends wholely on appreciating value, which is orthogonal to affordability. The reason people care about this type of 'housing as an investment' is that it helps sell people on high mortgages, so more people can own rather than rent. It doesn't quite work out well, except for the banks and pre-existing home owners. And it's a plausible enough story. They might believe it themselves.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Housing as an investment here references the idea of owning the home you live in being a great source of capital gains. But why would you even want that? Possibility 1: You want to invest $500k in housing, and live in one unit. You get one unit, pay the entire $500k plus interest yourself, receive no rent other than imputed rent, and then can't sell at the end because even if your property is now with $1M if you sell you get a huge capital gains tax bill while still needing somewhere to live, so your "investment" has left you stuck in a place where you can't afford to move because the capital gains tax would prevent you from selling your house and buying an equivalent one, or even selling it for a smaller one at a profit because the difference in their values is lost to tax. Possibility 2: You invest $500k in housing, get multiple units for that price, live in one of them, receive rents from other tenants that compensate for a lack of capital gains while holding an asset with a stable value, can easily move out of your own unit because you're not trapped by capital gains tax. Possibility 3: You have $500k to invest, put $25k into a house for yourself and receive the small imputed rent, put the other $475k into an ordinary investment fund because you don't actually like investing all your assets solely in real estate. You now have a more diversified investment portfolio that isn't heavily exposed to volatility in the local housing market, are still getting the market rate of return, are getting actual returns from the ordinary market instead of paying a huge amount in imputed rent and once again aren't trapped by capital gains tax if you ever want to move house. The first one is clearly the worst one. > The reason people care about this type of 'housing as an investment' is that it helps sell people on high mortgages, so more people can own rather than rent. High mortgages are the counterargument. If you were taking out a $25,000 mortgage, that could be a good investment even if the value never goes up, because you get a place to live, and are insulated from (and indeed benefit from) potential increases in local real estate if there were any. If you're taking out a $500,000 mortgage for one unit, the imputed rent could be the same percentage of the investment if local rents are high, but now the potential upside is blunted and replaced with risk of value loss because you're buying high instead of buying low. That's a bad investment -- you're getting the same percentage ROI in terms of imputed rent while exposing yourself to the risk of a housing crash with a disproportionate share of your net worth in an undiversified investment, and further increases in value are long-term unsupportable by local wages. And if you're talking about a matter of policy (we want to encourage home ownership) then there are obviously more people who would qualify for a $25,000 or $100,000 mortgage than a $500,000 one. Even for the smaller number of people who could make the payments on $500k, you don't have to convince them to take out a huge mortgage if you can supply them with the same house with a smaller mortgage.

smallmancontrov 2y ago

Housing services aren't the problem, capital gains are. You know this. You are nitpicking. But if you ever find a portal to the alternate dimension you describe, please give me a ping, I'd love to live there.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Housing services aren't the problem, capital gains are. You know this. You are nitpicking. Rents and imputed rents are definitely part of investment returns, and you can have a "good investment" where the returns are entirely in the form of [imputed] rents/dividends and not at all in the form of capital gains.

financetechbro 2y ago

Your example is nonsensical. This is not how the real world works, living in hypotheticals doesn’t help anybody. Also quite literally the meaning of a good investment is “it goes up and to the right” and anything that goes up and to the right in perpetuity is bound to become unaffordable if the wages or wealth of the buyers doesn’t increase at the same rate as the asset. The housing market is a Ponzi scheme propped up by governments. But that’s a topic for another conversation.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Also quite literally the meaning of a good investment is “it goes up and to the right” and anything that goes up and to the right in perpetuity is bound to become unaffordable if the wages or wealth of the buyers doesn’t increase at the same rate as the asset. I feel like you're just not understanding the math. Suppose you want to invest in real estate, but property values are low and stable, zero capital gains. You invest $500,000 in twenty $25,000 units, rent them out and receive $250/mo each in net profit, $3000/year in gains/unit, 20 units, $60,000/year in total gains. Then you invest the $60,000 back into real estate, so now you have $560,000 in housing and next year you collect $67,200/year in gains from renting them, which you invest back into real estate, so then you have $627k in assets. Number chart goes up and to the right, even though the price per unit hasn't moved. It's not different for homeowners. If you buy a house -- it doesn't matter if it's $25,000 or $500,000 -- you no longer have to pay rent to somebody else. Whatever you used to be paying in rent, now you get to keep. You can invest that in more real estate or in stocks or whatever you want, but by buying a house to live in, you have a return in terms of imputed rent regardless of whether the value of the house goes up.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  The difference you’re not accounting for is that when someone buys a house, in practice they value it as an asset that must increase in value, not simply as a way to offset rent costs, which is effectively what you’re saying. Thats the real problem. People believe their 500K house must go up in value and not fluctuate in value like any other marketplace of goods would see, and therefore are in opposition to anything that reduces the value of the home in which they live. That’s why homeowners routinely bend over backwards to maintain home values. The general consensus society has is it’s one of the primary nest egg assets, and for many it’s their biggest one and they act in that self interest. Real estate lacks the functioning market dynamics you see in every other area of economic activity, in part because we have collectively as a society decided long ago to adopt policies that would enshrine protecting home values above other concerns. Edit: This also captures capital in an unproductive manner because real estate doesn’t have functioning market dynamics. Imagine instead of having ever increasing real estate costs (the reality of todays world) which benefit only a finite fraction of economic investment but make up a huge total of the average persons expenses, that productivity gains could instead be captured by other investments like stocks. You’d have more people able to invest in companies, meaning there well could be more companies to invest in, increasing the health of other markets in turn. People will put their money somewhere and naturally a productive business is one such place afterall Instead, one of life’s biggest overall expenses not only increases over time in aggregate but the value is captured by an fraction of the population of that increase, which is really a net loss to economic activity more broadly

ForTheKidz 2y ago

Putting aside rent (which should be illegal IMO outside of rent to own—it just makes no sense as a social construct if you want to fight poverty instead of create it) the idea of an affordable investment is just bonkers. Any investment market necessarily precludes the idea of affordable entry or they wouldn't make good investments—the longer term you look at, the more this is true. We also can't force developers to build. This is a major problem in cities: they budget for housing that's supposed to come online but there's no (general, broad, accepted) way to penalize developers for failing to follow through. Public housing or bust, IMO. The housing market has failed this country for too many decades to trust it to suddenly start irrationally acting in our best collective interests with older generations selflessly sacrificing their retirements to not fuck over their grandchildren.

worik 2y ago
> Putting aside rent (which should be illegal IMO outside of rent to own—it just makes no sense as a social construct I understand the sentiment. But many people at many stages of their lives do not want to be owning g property, so some rental properties make plenty of sense as a social construct But. The current situation where the poorest third give most of their income to the richest third of the population is manifestly unjust and is a blight on our society It is enough to give capitalism a bad name
- ForTheKidz 2y ago
  Hell, I don't want to own property right now as I'm in a transitional form in my life. I pay too much for what I get out of my current apartment and I'm looking to downsize/chuck amenities away. Trust me, I'm happy to not have to maintain my plumbing or HVAC and while the ikea-quality hardware is ugly and cheap feeling, it's not my problem. It hurts, but I know that I'm not up to the task of maintaining a house and it would cost me more than rent to hire someone else to do it for me + property taxes + mortgage + actual material costs of maintenance. But if you want to solve homelessness, like actually try to remove it as a necessary reality of modern life (as many other capitalist AND socialist countries have successfully achieved), we fundamentally can't get there through mortgages and rents. I'm happy that people are more literate about housing policy than ever, but I think we can aim for more than marginally more affordable housing—we can completely defeat homelessness if we have the will to do so and don't have a dogmatic fear of subsidized housing destroying the value of the asset you'll leverage to retire on (if you're lucky). Sadly, I suspect we'll see a lot more homelessness before people who legitimately have any of their interests at heart enter power.