Very much so. You’re not only getting housing, but you also have an asset that you control that appreciates in value year over year. And what do you want to own and control in a zero or negative interest rate policy environment? Assets.
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."
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.
This directly contradicts the article, so please cite your sources.
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/...
> 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?