|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some bloggers are trying to use my
article to claim that buying a house isn't
an investment. That is absolutely
not a valid conclusion. Saying that
a home isn't an investment just because it
doesn't appreciate faster than inflation,
is like saying a bicycle isn't
transportation just because it doesn't
fly. A bicycle doesn't have to fly to be
transportation, and a house doesn't have
to appreciate faster than inflation to be
an investment. I have a separate article
explaining why
buying a home is indeed an
investment. Another reason to know the rate is that you
might not want to be tied to your home for 30
years. You might want the option to move after
a few years. If the appreciation rate is high
enough, the extra value of the house in a few years
will offset the upfront costs of buying. If the
appreciation rate is too low then it won't. Finally, if the appreciation rate is high
enough, you actually live for free! The
increase in value of your home can be greater than
what you pay out in taxes, insurance, maintenance
and interest. You can cash in that value when you
sell, or when you're old enough to qualify for a
reverse mortgage. And is there anything sweeter
than living for free? But you live for free only if
the appreciation rate is high enough, usually about
1.75 percentage points higher than the general rate
of inflation. For these reasons, it behooves us to get the
appreciation rate right. Unfortunately, that's
easier said than done. Here's why. With all those caveats, you might be tempted
to give up! But I think it's better to have
some idea of what's happened in the past,
even if we know it might not be accurate for our
area in the near future. So with that in mind,
let's get to work. First, let's account for the fact that the
average new home size exploded from 983
s.f. to 2349 s.f. from 1950-2004, or
about 1.6% per year on average.
(NPR)
So a big chunk of the increase isn't inflation,
it's that bigger homes cost more money. O nce we
factor that in, the price of new homes per
square foot went up by only
4.2%
annually from 1963 to 2008. And now let's compare that rate to the
general rate of inflation, which was
4.4% for
the same period. (CPI,
BLS)
As predicted earlier, the rate of real
estate inflation and the general rate of
inflation are almost identical. I find the often-quoted idea that homes
generally appreciate faster than inflation to be a load of
B.S. Sure, local appreciation can be
higher, especially in the short-term, but
the average appreciation for the whole
country over the long-term is very much
tied to the general rate of inflation, as the
figures from three different sources above readily
show. This would have to be the case, because if
homes got more expensive faster than earnings went
up, pretty soon nobody would be able to afford to
buy a home. Of course, you could get lucky. I once
enjoyed an average 16% appreciation rate each year
for five years in Austin, Texas, and as of 2010 Austin actually averaged 8.9% yearly appreciation over 20 years (5.1% annualized). But by the same
token, homes can actually depreciate while
general inflation is going up, as happened all over
the U.S. in the late 2000's. So when you're using a rent-vs.-buy
calculator, I strongly suggest you set
the rate of appreciation to be the same as the
inflation rate. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If you liked this site then you might like some of my other sites: Entire site ©1999-2010 Michael Bluejay Inc. All information is "use at your own risk" Contact |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||