The residential property versus shares debate is popular and can be as fiery as political and religious debates. So I’m often asked about comparisons of the long term returns.
Following is some commentary I came across from Dr Shane Oliver, Chief Economist and Head of Investment Strategy at AMP Capital Investments. (Emphasis added by me.)
After allowing for costs, residential investment property and shares generate similar long-term returns. This can be seen in the next chart, which shows an estimate of the long-term return from housing, shares, bonds and cash.
Over the long term, the returns from housing and shares tend to cycle around each other at similar levels. In fact, both have returned an average of 11.5% p.a. over the last 80 years or so. While housing is less volatile than shares and seems safer for many, it offers a lower level of liquidity and diversifcation. The bottom lineis, once the similar returns of housing and shares are allowed for, and these characteristics are traded off, there is a case for both in investors’ portfolios over the long term.
Source: Oliver’s Insights, Edition 37 – 25 November 2010, ‘Australian housing – is it a bubble? What’s the risk?’
Do you or someone you know hold beliefs like “property is safe”, “property doesn’t go down”, “you can’t lose money on property” and “property is the best investment”. If so, you may be a victim of our natural tendency to confirmation bias. Read this article to boost your robust decision making.
A couple of weeks ago someone was telling me about their recent investment property purchase. They had borrowed the full property price plus purchase costs. Their strategy was to hold it for about 3 to 4 years and then sell it for a substantial profit.
Alarm bells were already ringing for me – then they came out with “the worst that could happen is we sell it for what we bought it for.”
I do not have a bias for or against any particular type of investment asset, although some may interpret that I do. I favour robust decision making where the outcome is selecting the right strategies and assets for you right now. What is appropriate for you will be fluid and change over time as your situation evolves.
When it comes to residential property too often I encounter beliefs and decision making that is far from robust.
I hear phrases like “property is safe”, “property doesn’t go down”, “you can’t lose money on property” and “property is the best investment”.
“Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.”
— Michael Shermer
Confirmation bias is one of our natural tendencies where we selectively focus on and easily recall information that reinforces our existing beliefs. At the same time we selectively ignore and forget information that would challenge that belief.
When people talk to me about residential property they seem to always have a toolkit of anecdotes they can roll-out to prove their point. Often they can’t recall knowing anyone who has lost money, or reading any news about property loses.
I know a lot of people have made good money investing in residential property in the past decade. But I also know people who have lost money, sometimes lots. And I also see the more scientific statistics of movement in real estate indices (and the indices of other asset types.)
“…thinking anecdotally comes naturally, whereas thinking scientifically does not.”
— Michael Shermer
Evidence to help you
In the interests of supporting you in making more robust decisions I am starting to collate and publish evidence to challenge the common misconception that property does not go down. Here is the first:
House prices tipped to slip in year ahead
The Weekend Australian, January 1-2, 2011 reported “…a national fall in house prices with further declines likely over the year ahead.” Read the article here
I live in the “boom town” of Perth where optimism about property investment is astounding. Yet even in Perth property does go down as reported by The Weekend Australian:
“The Rismark-RP Data house price index shows the market is weakest in Perth, where average prices have fallen by 4.9 per cent, or almost $25,000, since May.
Average apartment prices in Perth are down $44,000. Home buyers in Perth have seen no capital appreciation since August 2007.”
(emphasis added by me.)
Wow, two whole years where investors potentially had no capital appreciation to compensate them for negative cash flow (from rent not covering interest).
Selling your property for what you bought it for is certainly not the worst that could happen!
Ensure you are scientific in your research and make robust decisions about what is right for you right now.
There is no shortage of articles quoting one “expert” or another about whether or not Australian residential property is currently in a bubble, ripe to boom again or just fair value. Every article seems to be accompanied by a barrage of graphs and statistical quotations to justify the author’s point of view.
If your eyes glaze over at the detailed graphs don’t worry, you’re not alone, often mine do too. I sometimes wonder (suspect) if the detailed graphs are purposeful anaesthesia to make the reader compliant to the author’s conclusions. (Hmm, I think that sentence may have done the same…)
Overvalued or fair value or…?
Really in the scheme of things if property is over or under-valued matters most if you are taking a short term trader’s view – trying to make money within a short time frame from a volatile asset.
What matters more is that new residential property investors are increasingly reliant on a continuing price boom in order to make a reasonable total return on investment (ROI).
With property prices and rents at current levels residential property investors make significant annual net income losses (even after tax returns). That creates a situation where a high capital growth is required to repay the debt, offset income losses and retain a reasonable return on equity.
Yes, my generation and those with an investing memory of about 15 years may say that residential property does generate really high capital growth. But the fact is that all you can say is that over that period it has done.
Can residential property continue to deliver high annualised capital growth over coming decades?
My helicopter view
Value is in the eye of the beholder. People seem to be willing to pay whatever they can to get something they really want. And Australians really want their own home – and a comfortable one at that.
In the last decade the amount of people bidding for property and their ability to pay has rapidly increased for reasons such as:
Ability and willingness to borrow higher percentages of income.
Ability to borrow higher percentages of the property value, meaning you needed to have saved less before you could compete in the market.
Grants to property purchasers.
Commencement of lending to a lot of the population previously shunned (e.g. employed yet unmarried females of baby-making age; and those with limited or mixed financial history.).
Consequently in many of our memories we have seen stellar above-average capital growth.
Can that ability and willingness to pay increase as rapidly over the next 40 years and thereby support continuing stellar capital growth?
It would require 40 years of:
Above average wages growth
Increased percentage disposable income through reduced lifestyle expenses (less kids and more frugal living – yeah right!)
Low interest rates
Increased willingness to lend by the banks
More crazy Government subsidies
I’m not an economist so I don’t even pretend to have a crystal ball. But my rational mind says that in the long term gravity will kick in and force a return to normal long-term growth rates.
Therefore I expect that at some time there may be a sustained period of sideways or even negative growth (i.e. price declines.)
Predicting when that will occur matters most if you are taking a short term trader’s view.
I welcome your thoughts, reaction and responses to my view which you can in the comments section below.
Owning your own home is one major goal for many young Australians. But with property prices so high a first mortgage may appear out of reach. In this interview on Wake Up WA, Certified Financial Planner professional Matt Hern shares three strategies that first home buyers (especially young people) can use to save up to buy their first home.
I don’t usually watch ABC TV’s Media Watch show but on Monday night I was pleased to have flicked over at just the right time. Newspapers love criticising financial planners in their usual sensationalised way. One Media Watch story uncovered a dirty little secret about newspapers and how they appear to be so influenced by who pays their bills – the real estate advertisers.
So when you are investing in real estate don’t trust or rely upon property information published by newspapers. It very well could be only part of the full story – the part favourable to agents and developers. Broaden and deepen your research using other information sources.
Media Watch revealed that The Age newspaper had published an online article critical of real estate agents and their ‘dirty little secrets’. The article received lots of reader comments but was quickly removed after The Age received “a forceful complaint from the Real Estate Institute of Victoria”.
So why would The Age remove such a popular story that was driving people to their website and engaging them in the content? This is what Media Watch revealed:
“Well, perhaps because of another “dirty little secret”: property ads placed by real estate agents are worth around $60 million a year to The Age, we’ve been told. That’s more than a quarter of its total advertising revenue.
So keen is the paper to keep on the good side of the property-wallahs that it takes up to seventy of them on an annual junket – this year’s trip departs to China soon.”
And newspaper journalists and editors think the financial planning industry is corrupted by how some advisers are paid? Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black!
(P.S. I am a fee based planner who rebates any commissions to you.)
One of the messages I teach is to “Do What You Love; Outsource The Rest“. When it comes to direct investment in residential property it can be tricky to implement this due to the presence of too many biased spruikers. Neil Jenman refers to them as “selling machines” in his insightful article, which I recommend you read in full here.
Following the recent drop in real estate prices I have noticed many spruikers coming out again in force promoting their services and properties. If you perceive property to be “cheap” and are tempted into buying now please read Jenman’s article.
One of the valuable insights in Jenman’s article is when he busts the myth that property prices double every seven to ten years:
“In 1890, the average Sydney home price was $1,446 (£723). If property really does double every seven years then, in 2009, the average Sydney home will be worth $189,530,112.”
Neil Jenman has been in the real estate industry for decades and is now also a consumer advocate. Here’s his view on investing through property investment clubs and the like:
“In my opinion, investing in property via a Selling Machine company, which is rapidly becoming the most common way to invest in property, is the worst way to invest in property.”
“…all [investors] have been ripped off because they have paid far too much at the start – and they often pay far too much in holding costs.”
When direct investment in real estate becomes the right strategy to achieve your life goals find the right mentor to help you and ensure they are biased and/or incentivised to achieving your best outcome rather than theirs.
Watch the documentary “The Ascent of Money” by Niall Ferguson on ABC TV this Thursday night. This episode is about property. If you miss the show you can either buy the DVD or read the book of the same title.
Coupled with the recent publicised falls in property prices you should by now realise that ‘safe as houses’ is absolute rubble!
If you are going to invest in residential property be broad and deep in your research so that when the wolf comes along he can’t blow your house down.
Many in the media are saying that the latest interest rate cut makes property more affordable for first home buyers. I disagree.
Let us remember this is the lowest interest rate in over 30 years. Rates are artificially low to stimulate the economy short term. This is not normal or even an average.
So it is fair to assume that over the 25 to 30 year loan term that interest rates will go up again. If you can’t afford the repayments when interest rates go back up (as they will) then buying a house now is a recipe for future financial stress.
The current interest rate only makes a home more affordable if you can fix your rate at current levels for 30 years.
If you still buy even though you can only just afford the repayments now then you are betting that your income will increase quicker than interest rates. Start praying that it does.
The only thing that makes the house more affordable is free cash in the form of the First Home Owners Grant.
House prices will perhaps stop decreasing so rapidly. Lower interest rates reduce the pressure on would be sellers so they will be less inclined to drop the price of their house. It is suddenly more affordable for them to hold on.
Of course you could be really creative and just buy a less expensive house that you could afford.
TIP: calculate your affordability based on the repayments if interest rates are 3% higher than they are at the time of purchase. Then make repayments at that level right from the start.