finyork.com

Tag: real estate investing strategies

  • How Real Estate Impacts the US Economy

    Real estate, commonly known as the largest asset class in the world, would intuitively play an integral role in the US economy. Residential real estate properties provide a vital pillar of the “American Dream”: private housing for families. Separately, they can also be the greatest source of wealth and savings for many Americans. Commercial real estate (CRE) – including apartment buildings – creates jobs and rented spaces for retail stores, offices, and manufacturing warehouses. Real estate business and investment provides a source of revenue for millions of Americans.

    In 2018, real estate construction contributed $1.15 trillion to the US national economy output (BEA.gov). That accounts for 6.2% of the US economy GDP over the same year, which is quite a significant proportion. For comparison’s sake, it’s more than the $1.13 trillion in 2017, however less than the 2006-peak of $1.19 trillion. Back in 2006, real estate construction was an even heftier 8.9% component of US GDP (Amadeo, The Balance).

    While there’s some politicization over whether these qualify as “good” jobs, real estate construction is obviously labor-intensive. It plays a major force in job creation. The decline in housing construction was undoubtedly a major contribution to the COVID-19 Recession’s high unemployment rate.

    The Ripple Effect in the US Economy of Real Estate

    Construction is the only part of real estate that’s directly calculated into US GDP (Amadeo, The Balance). Nonetheless, real estate affects many other areas of the US economy, which aren’t captured by US GDP metrics. As an example, a decline in real estate sales inevitably leads to a decline in real estate prices. This effect lowers the value of all homes, irrespective of whether owners are actively selling or not. Furthermore, this causes a reduction in the overall number of home equity loans available to owners. Ultimately, the market impact is reduced consumer spending, as more homeowner cash is tied up in housing projects.

    As many are aware, nearly 70% of the US economy is based on personal consumption (BEA.gov). Consequently, a reduction in consumer spending is directly linked to a downward spiral in the US economy. The downward spiral causality is easily witnessed. This macroeconomic phenomenon leads to further drops in employment, income, and consumer spending (Amadeo, The Balance). The primary concern about the US economy falling into a deep recession stems from concerns about Federal Reserve policy. The Federal Reserve received widespread accreditation for keeping rates very low throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Many experts argue a further cut to interest rates are still necessary (Amadeo, The Balance). There is one positive takeaway regarding lower home prices. They lessen the chance of inflation.

    Real Estate and the 2008 US (Global) Economy Recession

    Of course, no better example exists of real estate’s impact on the US economy than the 2008 recession. While very few immediately realized it, falling home prices triggered the downturn and subsequent broad, ill effects. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), by July 2007, the median price of an existing single-family home in the US was down 4% since its peak in October 2005 (National Association of Realtors). Macroeconomists, risk analysts, credit analysts, and economists as a whole couldn’t reconcile how concerning this was. Clear definitions and numeric parameters of recession, bear market, and a stock market correction are well standardized. The same is still, not yet true for the housing market.

    For perspective and comparison, many likened it to the 24% decline during the Great Depression of 1929. Others compared it to the decline ranging from 22% to 40% in US, oil-producing areas in the early 1980s. Incorrectly using these as benchmarks, the 2008 housing “slump” could appear barely newsworthy. To the contrary, the crash quickly gained steam. Economic studies have shown that even fairly small declines between 10% and 15% are enough to eliminate the homeowner’s equity. We saw this occur in early 2007 within communities in Florida, Nevada, and Louisiana.

    Death by Derivatives

    Staggeringly, nearly half the loans issued between 2005 and 2007 were subprime. Of course, this means homebuyers are much more likely to default. Far worse for the national economy, banks used these loans to finance trillions of dollars of derivatives. Banks infamously packaged these loans into mortgage-backed securities. They peddled them as “safe” investments to pension funds, corporations, and retirees. Moreover, they were thought of as “insured” from default by a new insurance product called a credit default swap. The biggest issuer was American International Group, Inc. (AIG).

    Once borrowers defaulted, the mortgage-backed securities had very questionable value. A huge number of investors began to exercise their credit default swaps, such that AIG ran out of cash. They were ready to default themselves, until the Federal Reserve bailed them out.

    Investment banks with a large number of mortgage-backed securities on their books – most notably Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers – were rejected by other banks. Without cash to continue operations, they ran to the Fed for help. The Fed wound up finding a buyer for Bear Sterns, but not the latter, Lehman. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers kicked off the 2008 financial crisis, officially.

    Are We on The Brink?

    Studies show investors are seriously questioning whether another real estate market crash will happen in the next two years. Housing prices are more or less stagnant, while the Fed is beginning to drop interest rates. This is indicative of a bubble and historically we know that bubbles burst.

    However, there are many structural differences to consider when evaluating today’s market with the housing market in 2005. Firstly, the volume of subprime loans makes up a smaller percentage of the mortgage market. Interestingly, however, these are growing under the “nonprime loans” name. In 2005, they contributed roughly 20% (Amadeo, The Balance). Additionally, banks have greatly increased lending standards. Investors, those who flip houses, have to provide between 20% to 45% of the cost of a home. Compared to during the subprime crisis, buyers needed to provide 20% or less.

    Most importantly, homeowners are not taking as much equity out of their homes. Home equity skyrocketed at $85 billion in 2006. Subsequently, it collapsed to less than $10 billion in 2010 and remained around that level until 2015. By 2017, it had only risen to $14 billion (Amadeo, The Balance). A major reason behind that is fewer people are filing for bankruptcy (Allen, Consumer Reports). In 2016, only 770,846 filed for bankruptcy; by comparison in 2010, only 1.5 million people did (Allen, Consumer Reports). Many economists, quite surprisingly, attribute this to “Obamacare”.

    The Bottom Line

    Concisely, we’re very unlikely to see anything close to what we witnessed in 2008 for a number of reasons. Primarily, structural changes in the economy – such as volatility ratio mandates for investment and retail banks – would prevent a widespread financial epidemic, even if the housing market were to suffer a significant downturn. Equally important to the housing market, mandates for homeowners and active real estate investors are more stringent. Finally, cost-cutting measures, such as the ACA, make it less likely for homeowners to default on mortgage payments.

    This is not even considering that while some reputable economists believe we may see prices decline in the next two years, we’ve yet to see it. In fact, as we continue to recover from COVID-19 economically, we’re seeing a housing market recovery. There’re multiple reasons we don’t need to worry about a repeat of 2008.

  • How Real Estate Impacts the US Economy

    Real estate, commonly known as the largest asset class in the world, would intuitively play an integral role in the US economy. Residential real estate properties provide a vital pillar of the “American Dream”: private housing for families. Separately, they can also be the greatest source of wealth and savings for many Americans. Commercial real estate (CRE) – including apartment buildings – creates jobs and rented spaces for retail stores, offices, and manufacturing warehouses. Real estate business and investment provides a source of revenue for millions of Americans.

    In 2018, real estate construction contributed $1.15 trillion to the US national economy output (BEA.gov). That accounts for 6.2% of the US economy GDP over the same year, which is quite a significant proportion. For comparison’s sake, it’s more than the $1.13 trillion in 2017, however less than the 2006-peak of $1.19 trillion. Back in 2006, real estate construction was an even heftier 8.9% component of US GDP (Amadeo, The Balance).

    While there’s some politicization over whether these qualify as “good” jobs, real estate construction is obviously labor-intensive. It plays a major force in job creation. The decline in housing construction was undoubtedly a major contribution to the COVID-19 Recession’s high unemployment rate.

    The Ripple Effect in the US Economy of Real Estate

    Construction is the only part of real estate that’s directly calculated into US GDP (Amadeo, The Balance). Nonetheless, real estate affects many other areas of the US economy, which aren’t captured by US GDP metrics. As an example, a decline in real estate sales inevitably leads to a decline in real estate prices. This effect lowers the value of all homes, irrespective of whether owners are actively selling or not. Furthermore, this causes a reduction in the overall number of home equity loans available to owners. Ultimately, the market impact is reduced consumer spending, as more homeowner cash is tied up in housing projects.

    As many are aware, nearly 70% of the US economy is based on personal consumption (BEA.gov). Consequently, a reduction in consumer spending is directly linked to a downward spiral in the US economy. The downward spiral causality is easily witnessed. This macroeconomic phenomenon leads to further drops in employment, income, and consumer spending (Amadeo, The Balance). The primary concern about the US economy falling into a deep recession stems from concerns about Federal Reserve policy. The Federal Reserve received widespread accreditation for keeping rates very low throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Many experts argue a further cut to interest rates are still necessary (Amadeo, The Balance). There is one positive takeaway regarding lower home prices. They lessen the chance of inflation.

    Real Estate and the 2008 US (Global) Economy Recession

    Of course, no better example exists of real estate’s impact on the US economy than the 2008 recession. While very few immediately realized it, falling home prices triggered the downturn and subsequent broad, ill effects. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), by July 2007, the median price of an existing single-family home in the US was down 4% since its peak in October 2005 (National Association of Realtors). Macroeconomists, risk analysts, credit analysts, and economists as a whole couldn’t reconcile how concerning this was. Clear definitions and numeric parameters of recession, bear market, and a stock market correction are well standardized. The same is still, not yet true for the housing market.

    For perspective and comparison, many likened it to the 24% decline during the Great Depression of 1929. Others compared it to the decline ranging from 22% to 40% in US, oil-producing areas in the early 1980s. Incorrectly using these as benchmarks, the 2008 housing “slump” could appear barely newsworthy. To the contrary, the crash quickly gained steam. Economic studies have shown that even fairly small declines between 10% and 15% are enough to eliminate the homeowner’s equity. We saw this occur in early 2007 within communities in Florida, Nevada, and Louisiana.

    Death by Derivatives

    Staggeringly, nearly half the loans issued between 2005 and 2007 were subprime. Of course, this means homebuyers are much more likely to default. Far worse for the national economy, banks used these loans to finance trillions of dollars of derivatives. Banks infamously packaged these loans into mortgage-backed securities. They peddled them as “safe” investments to pension funds, corporations, and retirees. Moreover, they were thought of as “insured” from default by a new insurance product called a credit default swap. The biggest issuer was American International Group, Inc. (AIG).

    Once borrowers defaulted, the mortgage-backed securities had very questionable value. A huge number of investors began to exercise their credit default swaps, such that AIG ran out of cash. They were ready to default themselves, until the Federal Reserve bailed them out.

    Investment banks with a large number of mortgage-backed securities on their books – most notably Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers – were rejected by other banks. Without cash to continue operations, they ran to the Fed for help. The Fed wound up finding a buyer for Bear Sterns, but not the latter, Lehman. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers kicked off the 2008 financial crisis, officially.

    Are We on The Brink?

    Studies show investors are seriously questioning whether another real estate market crash will happen in the next two years. Housing prices are more or less stagnant, while the Fed is beginning to drop interest rates. This is indicative of a bubble and historically we know that bubbles burst.

    However, there are many structural differences to consider when evaluating today’s market with the housing market in 2005. Firstly, the volume of subprime loans makes up a smaller percentage of the mortgage market. Interestingly, however, these are growing under the “nonprime loans” name. In 2005, they contributed roughly 20% (Amadeo, The Balance). Additionally, banks have greatly increased lending standards. Investors, those who flip houses, have to provide between 20% to 45% of the cost of a home. Compared to during the subprime crisis, buyers needed to provide 20% or less.

    Most importantly, homeowners are not taking as much equity out of their homes. Home equity skyrocketed at $85 billion in 2006. Subsequently, it collapsed to less than $10 billion in 2010 and remained around that level until 2015. By 2017, it had only risen to $14 billion (Amadeo, The Balance). A major reason behind that is fewer people are filing for bankruptcy (Allen, Consumer Reports). In 2016, only 770,846 filed for bankruptcy; by comparison in 2010, only 1.5 million people did (Allen, Consumer Reports). Many economists, quite surprisingly, attribute this to “Obamacare”.

    The Bottom Line

    Concisely, we’re very unlikely to see anything close to what we witnessed in 2008 for a number of reasons. Primarily, structural changes in the economy – such as volatility ratio mandates for investment and retail banks – would prevent a widespread financial epidemic, even if the housing market were to suffer a significant downturn. Equally important to the housing market, mandates for homeowners and active real estate investors are more stringent. Finally, cost-cutting measures, such as the ACA, make it less likely for homeowners to default on mortgage payments.

    This is not even considering that while some reputable economists believe we may see prices decline in the next two years, we’ve yet to see it. In fact, as we continue to recover from COVID-19 economically, we’re seeing a housing market recovery. There’re multiple reasons we don’t need to worry about a repeat of 2008.

  • Investigating a Critic of Real Estate Investing

    Why Rental Properties Are Not Good Investments

    While real estate continues to be the biggest asset class in the world, there are still asset managers who are skeptical about recommending it to their clients as an investment vehicle. As Andy Rachleff puts it:

    One of the most common pieces of financial advice our clients hear from their friends and family is to invest their excess cash in rental properties. Unfortunately, this is terrible advice for all but a lucky few.


    Andy Rachelff

    The piece goes on to give four distinct reasons for critics’ deviation from traditional logic. Let’s break it down one by one.

    Income Isn’t Guaranteed

    While this is true, this is true when it comes to any financial investment vehicle. According to the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF), as of Q1 2021 the average 25-year return for private commercial real estate properties held for investment purposes slightly outperformed the S&P 500 Index, with average annualized returns of 10.3% and 9.6%, respectively. Residential and diversified real estate investments also averaged returns of 10.3% (NCREIF). Keep in mind, this data takes into account both the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Each calamity gravely deflated assets in the real estate market. So while it’s certainly true that income isn’t guaranteed, over a 25-year period both commercial and residential real estate holdings outperformed the S&P 500 Index. While income is almost never guaranteed, this should make you feel more at ease about investing your money in the real estate sector.

    It’s Hard To Generate A Compelling Return

    Another generic statement that can be said about almost any investment vehicle. If generating a compelling return was easy, everyone would follow the same system. When you invest in real estate, whether it be through direct property management or a REIT, you still maintain some level of ownership over a physical asset. Conversely, with stocks, as an example, you own a piece of a publicly traded company that has a board of directors, executives, and senior management controlling the day-to-day operations. In other words, your money is in the hand’s of others. With the majority of real estate investment vehicles, you are in control. Therefore, you are the one who has the ability to make decisions that generate a more compelling return, versus leaving those decisions in other people’s hands. It’s easier to generate a compelling return when you have control because at the end of the day, no one will care as much about your money as yourself. Additionally, the under 8% net over eight years earned by Weatherfront’s portfolio is not only a logical fallacy as it is only one data point, but their complaint is largely surrounding the tax structure of rental properties investors will have to pay. It is anecdotal data tailored to disprove a very generic argument to begin with.

    It’s Better To Diversify Your Portfolio

    In this section, the writer essentially makes a compelling argument to investing in a REIT versus direct real estate investing. While we’ve covered both strategies in depth, it’s true that in the long-term a REIT, REIG, or some form of pooled investment will mitigate your portfolio’s risk. This is especially true for individual properties that “fall out of favor”, sometimes due to external factors (i.e. COVID-19 pandemic). The writer correctly points out the substantial risk in a situation where you have enough capital to invest in only one property and advises you against it, but then makes a perfect argument for how to actually diversify your capital within the real estate market. After all, diversification is cited by a vast majority a major benefit to the real estate investment sector. Irrespective of how much money you have to invest upfront, you have control over how much risk you want to take on. Therefore you can choose to diversify your real estate portfolio, or you can put all your eggs in one basket. We are in agreement with Weatherfront that the latter generally isn’t advisable.

    Liquidity Matters

    Depending on what approach you take to real estate investing, the writer has a point. If you take a direct approach to real estate investing, you can easily get stuck with an undesirable property. Alternatively, investing in a real estate index fund, gives you the same liquidity as investing in any other index or stock. Nowadays, it’s very rare to see an investor take all their excess investment capital and tie it down in one property. If they do, they’re doing so at their own peril. With so much data available that shows national long-term economic growth is cyclical, one would have to have a very high appetite for risk to directly invest in a single property. Diversification has been proven to be an essential component to any successful investment portfolio.

    Concisely, do we agree with the critic’s assertion to avoid investing in real estate holdings? No, we don’t. While the writer points out some opportunities to improve your real estate investment strategy, they don’t provide a compelling argument to avoid investing in the entire segment. While some data is anecdotal and some is actual, they make a good case to be wary of rental properties. At the same time, they make a great case for diversification through REITs and other real estate index funds. The fact is there will always be critics and skeptics of any investment choices. There are analysts who are paid to do just that. However real estate has been the world’s largest asset class for awhile and it isn’t going anywhere. For investors, it would be wise to embrace that and research the abundant amount of strategies available within the real estate segment. Diversification will always be critical. Especially if you’re not currently invested in the real estate market, it would be prudent to look into various strategies because you’re all but sure to find some that suit either your short or long-term goals.

  • Investigating a Critic of Real Estate Investing

    Why Rental Properties Are Not Good Investments

    While real estate continues to be the biggest asset class in the world, there are still asset managers who are skeptical about recommending it to their clients as an investment vehicle. As Andy Rachleff puts it:

    One of the most common pieces of financial advice our clients hear from their friends and family is to invest their excess cash in rental properties. Unfortunately, this is terrible advice for all but a lucky few.


    Andy Rachelff

    The piece goes on to give four distinct reasons for critics’ deviation from traditional logic. Let’s break it down one by one.

    Income Isn’t Guaranteed

    While this is true, this is true when it comes to any financial investment vehicle. According to the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF), as of Q1 2021 the average 25-year return for private commercial real estate properties held for investment purposes slightly outperformed the S&P 500 Index, with average annualized returns of 10.3% and 9.6%, respectively. Residential and diversified real estate investments also averaged returns of 10.3% (NCREIF). Keep in mind, this data takes into account both the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Each calamity gravely deflated assets in the real estate market. So while it’s certainly true that income isn’t guaranteed, over a 25-year period both commercial and residential real estate holdings outperformed the S&P 500 Index. While income is almost never guaranteed, this should make you feel more at ease about investing your money in the real estate sector.

    It’s Hard To Generate A Compelling Return

    Another generic statement that can be said about almost any investment vehicle. If generating a compelling return was easy, everyone would follow the same system. When you invest in real estate, whether it be through direct property management or a REIT, you still maintain some level of ownership over a physical asset. Conversely, with stocks, as an example, you own a piece of a publicly traded company that has a board of directors, executives, and senior management controlling the day-to-day operations. In other words, your money is in the hand’s of others. With the majority of real estate investment vehicles, you are in control. Therefore, you are the one who has the ability to make decisions that generate a more compelling return, versus leaving those decisions in other people’s hands. It’s easier to generate a compelling return when you have control because at the end of the day, no one will care as much about your money as yourself. Additionally, the under 8% net over eight years earned by Weatherfront’s portfolio is not only a logical fallacy as it is only one data point, but their complaint is largely surrounding the tax structure of rental properties investors will have to pay. It is anecdotal data tailored to disprove a very generic argument to begin with.

    It’s Better To Diversify Your Portfolio

    In this section, the writer essentially makes a compelling argument to investing in a REIT versus direct real estate investing. While we’ve covered both strategies in depth, it’s true that in the long-term a REIT, REIG, or some form of pooled investment will mitigate your portfolio’s risk. This is especially true for individual properties that “fall out of favor”, sometimes due to external factors (i.e. COVID-19 pandemic). The writer correctly points out the substantial risk in a situation where you have enough capital to invest in only one property and advises you against it, but then makes a perfect argument for how to actually diversify your capital within the real estate market. After all, diversification is cited by a vast majority a major benefit to the real estate investment sector. Irrespective of how much money you have to invest upfront, you have control over how much risk you want to take on. Therefore you can choose to diversify your real estate portfolio, or you can put all your eggs in one basket. We are in agreement with Weatherfront that the latter generally isn’t advisable.

    Liquidity Matters

    Depending on what approach you take to real estate investing, the writer has a point. If you take a direct approach to real estate investing, you can easily get stuck with an undesirable property. Alternatively, investing in a real estate index fund, gives you the same liquidity as investing in any other index or stock. Nowadays, it’s very rare to see an investor take all their excess investment capital and tie it down in one property. If they do, they’re doing so at their own peril. With so much data available that shows national long-term economic growth is cyclical, one would have to have a very high appetite for risk to directly invest in a single property. Diversification has been proven to be an essential component to any successful investment portfolio.

    Concisely, do we agree with the critic’s assertion to avoid investing in real estate holdings? No, we don’t. While the writer points out some opportunities to improve your real estate investment strategy, they don’t provide a compelling argument to avoid investing in the entire segment. While some data is anecdotal and some is actual, they make a good case to be wary of rental properties. At the same time, they make a great case for diversification through REITs and other real estate index funds. The fact is there will always be critics and skeptics of any investment choices. There are analysts who are paid to do just that. However real estate has been the world’s largest asset class for awhile and it isn’t going anywhere. For investors, it would be wise to embrace that and research the abundant amount of strategies available within the real estate segment. Diversification will always be critical. Especially if you’re not currently invested in the real estate market, it would be prudent to look into various strategies because you’re all but sure to find some that suit either your short or long-term goals.