In the very long term housing can not increase in value quicker than wages (roughly inflation). And, if we were to actually make any progress in the industry of providing shelter, housing should actually lag inflation.
In the very long term housing can not increase in value quicker than wages (roughly inflation). And, if we were to actually make any progress in the industry of providing shelter, housing should actually lag inflation.
What exactly is stopping House Flipping BigCo from doing what you're proposing at scale?
Also you need to assess the rental conditions for each property on a case by case basis, and contract everything out to property management.
A lot of REITs invest in medium-large sized complexes to avoid the potential headaches. I’ve lived in a few of these and found them to be quite well managed.
It isn't an efficient market. Efficient markets have very little to no alpha. Real estate has been my best side job ever. Currently looking at a 40% annualized returns since 2015. All thanks to the same principals used to invest in public fixed income and equities.
If your using leverage then you're playing a very risky game and just as the upsides are very high, the downsides are equally higher if not more.
Properties that rent 7%+ are very high risk areas where you could easily loose much of the principle. And, you need to look at the percentage return on the total investment after all expenses. After all that, you need to multiply it by .7 because it's considered income.
There are people who this for a living, who know far more about it than anyone else. They run REITS.
I mean, just look at the total returns for REITs. yes, there's some that have dividends as high as 5% up to even 10%, I even have some of them in retirement portfolio but I expect they'll loose some of their principle as any REIT with such a high dividend probably would. Just read any financial review and you'll see that anything with a dividend above 10% is highly suspicious or Risky.
You have the risk of the location becoming undesirable (lots of places in the US with stagnant or declining property values), you have the risk of bad tenants, you have the risk of being liable for the tenants in case something happens (even though you have insurance, they can always sue you), you have the risk of maintenance issues in the house requiring costly repairs. Etc.
You must have a place to live and you are going to be paying for that. Why not own it so that your payments actually accrue capital while you're at it?
I've run the number in the past and in some markets it's clearly cheaper to own than rent (typically where there is slow but steady increases in prices - mid-west US). For other markets, you need 3-5% asset price increases just to break even with renting after 10 years (bay area).
He was just gambling on real estate appreciation and using me to cover most of his carrying costs; I would rather gamble on stocks.
By making the rent slightly lower, the landlord is sure to get a renter to cover most of the costs. But if the economic situation declines (or interest rates rises), he can just bump up the rent to cover the increase.