patrick.net

40c8 says

steady solid returns is what buying real estate that is well priced relative to rent gives you.

Feel free to support your assertion that the typical landlord or flipper has as steady returns as someone who invests in the S&P 500 index with some actual evidence.

40c8 says

Rents increase over time, mortgages mostly stay the same, and what starts as a good investment turns into a fantastic one.

Which is why millions of Americans have defaulted on their underwater houses and condos in the past ten years.

Not only are you asserting things, you are asserting very vague things.

But hey, if you're so confidence that real estate is a "fantastic" investment, buy a house from me. I'll sell you one in Boca for a mere $750,000. You can then rent it out for whatever you can get for it.

40c8 says

your here too, it amuses me.

I've backed up my statements with a multitude of evidence from independent and reputable sources. What evidence have you presented in this entire thread?

Tampajoe says

all you're doing now is creating more strawman arguments.

So calling someone's bluff is now a straw man? You clearly don't know what a straw man is. Read up on it.

However, you have answered the question. Although you'll tell others that real estate is an excellent investment right now and better than stocks, you won't put your money on the line. Talk is cheap.

Tampajoe says

You are a very stubborn person Dan. Is it really that hard to admit when you're wrong?

Obviously not. See this thread and comment. Care to admit that you are wrong about me now?

I have no problem completely reversing my position on any matter if evidence is presented that demonstrates I should. Like all people, I am occasionally wrong. Unlike the vast majority of people, I'm never wrong for a long time because I immediately adopt the correct position when evidence or reasoning demonstrates what the correct position is. Being wrong is therefore a very short-lived condition for me.

Nonetheless, you have given me no evidence and no reason to believe I am wrong about stocks outperforming real estate in the long-run.

So, when have you admitted being wrong on something on PatNet and reversed your position? I call hypocrisy on you.

Tampajoe says

And, fyi, I'm the one who said in my previous post that I invest slowly and steadily in the stock market using low cost index funds. Why do you create a false choice?

I have not presented a false choice. You can, of course, spend money on both stocks and real estate. However, any money you spend on one is not available to you to spend on the other. It is a choice and not a false one.

Stocks offer better long-term returns that are well documented. Stocks also offer far greater diversity and thus less risk. Lie and postulate all you want, that doesn't change these facts.

The only thing you have done in your statement above is demonstrate that you don't follow your own advice. And not listening to yourself is the wisest thing you've done in this thread.
Tampajoe says

I assume you'll go the way of FP and just stop posting now

I guess you were wrong about that as well.

P.S. FP made much smarter and more honest posts than you have.

FP says

40c8 says

So, predicting the housing bubble, selling my homes, getting out, buying like crazy a the bottom and making millions is stupid in your world?

I go with the evidence. Your comments are stupid.

2804 says

Your comments are stupid translation equals I'm too dumb to understand your math.

A transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that 2804/40c8 cannot provide any evidence to support his/their claims.

Dan8267 says

So calling someone's bluff is now a straw man? You clearly don't know what a straw man is. Read up on it.

However, you have answered the question. Although you'll tell others that real estate is an excellent investment right now and better than stocks, you won't put your money on the line. Talk is cheap.

Nope. The strawman is pretending my argument was the housing is a better investment than stocks. And then knocking it down.

For like the 5th time--I've NEVER posted that housing is better than stocks. Please read and understand that statement. Now read it again and let it sink in. In fact, if anything I've posted the opposite by stating that I prefer to invest in index funds. Are you purposely trying to misstate my position? Or are you just incapable of comprehending simple text?

Dan8267 says

Obviously not. See this thread and comment. Care to admit that you are wrong about me now?

Not yet. One instance doesn't prove the rule. This thread is pretty compelling evidence of stubbornness on your part.

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, you have given me no evidence and no reason to believe I am wrong about stocks outperforming real estate in the long-run.

Please stop. You're killing me. Do I need to post all the times I've repeated that my position isn't that housing beats stocks? My sole purpose in responding on this thread was to show your statement that real returns on housing are NOT negative or zero over time. I have never mentioned stocks. You have tried to change the subject to make it appear that you are correct, but the evidence is all over this thread.

Dan8267 says

I have not presented a false choice. You can, of course, spend money on both stocks and real estate. However, any money you spend on one is not available to you to spend on the other. It is a choice and not a false one.

Stocks offer better long-term returns that are well documented. Stocks also offer far greater diversity and thus less risk. Lie and postulate all you want, that doesn't change these facts.

Nope. It's really not that simple. All that documentation assumes a vacant house as I've shown you over and over. It is a faulty analysis. Do you at least understand that rent rises with inflation while a mortgage payment doesn't? And how powerful that is? If you can get that far, then you are starting to see the point.

Dan8267 says

I guess you were wrong about that as well.

P.S. FP made much smarter and more honest posts than you have.

Maybe--I see FP was simply trolling and cannot point to any faulty logic. Based on your postings here, you opinion of FP's posting vs. mine does not carry much weight with me.

Tampajoe says

Nowhere did I ever state that the best way to become rich was to buy expensive houses. All I did was point out the flaw in your reasoning that owning a house produces zero or negative return. And I showed you why you and your sources are wrong.

Tampajoe says

1. Your initial thesis was that housing returns are zero or negative. That is what you said on you OP directly below the video.

2. I posted that you are wrong (and houses most definitely have a positive return), and I included a detailed explanation for why the video and links you posted are incorrect showing that they ignored a very important part of return from housing.

OK--hopefully you now understand my very simple point. I've never said anything about stocks or whether housing is a better investment--it's not a very good comparison really because stocks are a passive investment while housing requires work.

Tampajoe says

My point continues to be only that houses do NOT have a zero or negative return. It's mind boggling to me that you persist in arguing this point.

Tampajoe says

And, fyi, I'm the one who said in my previous post that I invest slowly and steadily in the stock market using low cost index funds. Why do you create a false choice? Your posts are a diarrhea of bad logic. It's obviously possible for housing to produce a nice positive return AND for stocks to also produce a nice positive return. One is a passive investment while one is an active investment. Depending on ones preferences (free time, risk tolerance, skills), they can choose which makes more sense for them.

How many times does it usually take to sink in Dan?

Tampajoe says

Not yet. One instance doesn't prove the rule. This thread is pretty compelling evidence of stubbornness on your part.

There are other examples on this site that you can find easily if you aren't so damn lazy. Still, that's one more example then you admitting that you are wrong.

I am not married to any position. Therefore, I have no problem changing my mind when there is cause. However, I am a skeptic. I demand evidence to be convinced, and you have offered no evidence. That is your failing, not mine.

Tampajoe says

Dan8267 says

Tampajoe says

All I did was point out the flaw in your reasoning that owning a house produces zero or negative return.

I would never make a statement that is so vague

Really? Here's your statement directly under the video:

"Long-term return on housing before expenses: zero. Long-term return after expenses: negative." Sure seems like you said it.

Only a person who has a low reading skill level would think the statements " owning a house produces zero or negative return" and "Long-term return on housing before expenses: zero" mean the same thing. Clearly they don't. Your statement is about a single instance of owning a single house and mine is about the average return of the housing market. Your statement is vague. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's false. My statement is not. It is a single, verifiable truth that the average return of housing over the past 100 years has been near zero.

Sure there are some winners and some losers, but overall real estate has not been a winning strategy. In contrast over the same period of time stocks have returned a real rate of return of about 7%. That is a cold, hard, empirical fact.

As for the rest of your impudence, I have lost interest. If you want to have the last word, take it. I'm done with this discussion.

Dan8267 says

Only a person who has a low reading skill level would think the statements " owning a house produces zero or negative return" and "Long-term return on housing before expenses: zero" mean the same thing. Clearly they don't

Wow--that's the nit you're going to pick? From now on I will only use the plural term housing as opposed to the singular house. In any event, the statement, "long term return on housing before expenses: zero" is still incorrect.

Dan8267 says

My statement is not. It is a single, verifiable truth that the average return of housing over the past 100 years has been near zero.

It is verifiably wrong. The capital appreciation of housing after inflation is near zero, but the total return is most certainly positive. For the reasons that I and others have outlined many times on this thread.

Dan8267 says

Sure there are some winners and some losers, but overall real estate has not been a winning strategy. In contrast over the same period of time stocks have returned a real rate of return of about 7%. That is a cold, hard, empirical fact.

That's incorrect as well. Owning real estate has been a successful strategy that gets good yields even if the underlying asset has no real appreciation.

This conversation has run its course, on that we can agree.

well, this thread has been interesting to read!