patrick.net

I’m with Patrick,
I had a stock market equity “upside”=increase since April 2020 which is the price of a house in Santa Cruz or Aptos.
Edit: I just realized that it is a large increase partly because of the previous large decrease from the panic from the Wuhan pandemic, my error.

I used annuity calculators and would plug in the numbers of guys in Santa Cruz who bragged how much money they “made” with their house. I did it out of curiosity, what was the rate of return?

It never was as good as stock investments.

Will be interesting to see what happens when the lumber / building materials shortage is over and people start moving back to cities (at least some of them will).

Patrick says

BayArea says

But boy have you missed out on a lot of equity upside.

I think people who put their money into houses lost out on massive stock market upside.

If you strategically invested, made the right selections, and had some luck on your side, you may be right.

If you invested in the market and got market level gains, you absolutely did not beat the 5x leveraged gains available with Bay Area housing during this bull run.

clambo says

I’m with Patrick,
I had a stock market equity “upside”=increase since April 2020 which is the price of a house in Santa Cruz or Aptos.

I used annuity calculators and would plug in the numbers of guys in Santa Cruz who bragged how much money they “made” with their house. I did it out of curiosity, what was the rate of return?

It never was as good as stock investments.

Me too. 2020 was by far my best year, mostly due to Shopify.

It's all locked up in a 401k though, which kinda sucks. So I couldn't really get the house price out of it because of taxes, esp CA taxes. And the early withdrawal penalty. If I had only bought SHOP in my Roth IRA, damn, it would all be tax-free now. But it was just one bet among many. I didn't know that would be the one to rise so much.

Still, I feel very confident that the stock market was always a much better bet than the housing market.

BayArea says

Patrick says

BayArea says

But boy have you missed out on a lot of equity upside.

I think people who put their money into houses lost out on massive stock market upside.

If you strategically invested, made the right selections, and had some luck on your side, you may be right.

If you invested in the market and got market level gains, you absolutely did not beat the 5x leveraged gains available with Bay Area housing during this bull run.

You're conflating leverage with the increase in value. Dow did a 5x, houses did not do that. However the leverage that a low interest mortgage gives you can make up for the total amount gained and more if you're on the right side, as margin is typically a leverage of 2x or 3x at best, whereas with a house you can get 80% financed if not more. The greater the risk though the more leverage you use, so as with everything, pros and cons.

BayArea says

If you invested in the market and got market level gains

I totally blew away the market level gains over the last year.



But again, that was mostly just one very lucky pick.

BayArea says

Cash out refi sir

Said differently,
even bigger debt. Even more sunk cost.

BayArea says

If you invested in the market and got market level gains, you absolutely did not beat the 5x leveraged gains available with Bay Area housing during this bull run.

We are comparing owned stocks to an owned house. Your mortgaged house would need to be compared to stocks purchased on margin, or maybe options.

I used duck duck go.
If you invested $30,000 in the S&P 500 in 1964, today the account would show $7.65 million.
The land and house my parents had built in 1964 in Martha's Vineyard cost $30,000
Today Zillow shows it's worth about $1.5 million.
BUT, don't forget the property taxes; my mother told me they were $12,000/year in 1977.
Surely they have kept rising.
The S&P Index investment could be pretty tax efficient.

clambo says

I used duck duck go.
If you invested $30,000 in the S&P 500 in 1964, today the account would show $7.65 million.
The land and house my parents had built in 1964 in Martha's Vineyard cost $30,000
Today Zillow shows it's worth about $1.5 million.
BUT, don't forget the property taxes; my mother told me they were $12,000/year in 1977.
Surely they have kept rising.
The S&P Index investment could be pretty tax efficient.

You can still own real estate by buying REIT's as well if someone feels strongly about it. Or housing builders, but that's a finicky stock area.

I do think you should own your primary residence though. If you're going to get into RE investment I wouldn't do residential ever again besides a vacation rental I'd turn into a retirement home and have my current home paid off and then that one by the time I'm that age.

Vacation home financing is a grey area, but you can get beneficial financing so you don't need 20% down. They'll ask if you're going to do short term rentals. So theoretically you'd be committing mortgage fraud. Just make sure to have a back up excuse as to why you needed to turn it into a vacation rental if it ever gets caught. Very hard to prove that was the intention when purchasing the property. Hold it for a couple months and then start marketing it and you should be good (not legal advice).

Harder to leverage, but industrial park type properties are the money maker. My uncle nets $100k/mo roughly on what he's acquired over the years. He owns 20-30% of the stock in the bank that financed everything. So friendly loan terms. You'll never be a big boy in real estate without the banking relationship. Commercial is the way to go. No emotions, just business and math. No water bills, broken dishwashers, leaky sinks, etc. NNN all the way in good areas or niche properties and you make bank.

Or as I said just buy a REIT stock and set and forget if it's a trusted one or has good upside. Unless it's your job/business, almost everyone fails at side gigging real estate unless it was inherited. It's worse than restaurants. Watched/witnessed it for 15 years.

WookieMan says

You can still own real estate by buying REIT's

If you own stocks of many operating companies, you own Real Estate.

WookieMan says

I do think you should own your primary residence though

I think many should own their primary residence, as it gives them a measure of control over their living situation. Maybe worth paying a sane "ownership premium" for that. Much of the time, including now, ownership premiums here in the Bay Area, (which was the original focus of Patrick's website) have not been sane. They are completely insane. Till you have the insanity like "Bay Area" shared here, that Bay Area house equity is not sunk cost because one can just do a cash-out refinance. It means, more debt, more sunk cost, and a bit less measure of control over one's living situation. Insane.

All that said, clambo, who had his boots on the ground living here in this part of California for a long time, decided that he should not own his own home, and he has shared this reasoning. Who are we to know what's better for him?

Booger says

our mortgaged house would need to be compared to stocks purchased on margin, or maybe options.

Booger, you can't buy stocks on no down margin, nor 10% down margin, nor 20% margin. If he put 50% down margin on his house then maybe we have something to discuss.

BTW the stocks will have some dividend cash flow.

Maaaaybeeee if he put 50% down margin on his house (at today's prices) maaaaaybeeee he'd have an "ownership discount" of having less monthly cash flow cost to own than to rent. Maybe. I suppose such a "discount" could be thought of as a phantom dividend cash flow kind of a thing.

Maybe with 50% down, have an ownership discount. Maybe. Given the current insanity here in the Bay Area, probably not though.

I never buy stocks on margin because then:

1. I'd have to pay interest on the loan.
2. I could lose more than I invested.

Borrowing to buy a house has both of those problems, plus the additional problems of property taxes, insurance, and maintenance.

I don't pay any property taxes, insurance, or maintenance on my stocks. Just the opposite, most of them pay me a dividend to own them.

But I admit there are many twists and turns, and you need a good spreadsheet to cover most of the possibilities. If it's cheaper to own than to rent a particular kind of house in a particular location then you should buy rather than rent in that case.

I’m going to own something somewhere probably because the nicest areas have few rentals available.

This is the reason I would take the plunge.

I will use the proceeds from stock mutual funds and a few stocks to pay for it.

I’m so reluctant to buy because I know where my money actually works for me.

B.A.C.A.H. says

If you own stocks of many operating companies, you own Real Estate.

True. I should have clarified, I was talking residential rentals with the REIT's. Most stock is all commercial and industrial property on the balance sheet.

B.A.C.A.H. says

All that said, clambo, who had his boots on the ground living here in this part of California for a long time, decided that he should not own his own home, and he has shared this reasoning. Who are we to know what's better for him?

I agree. Coastal areas, where much of the population lives, doesn't appear to be a rational market. So renting can make sense.

But from say Utah to Virgina across the country (fly over country), it most certainly makes more sense to own. The rent versus own ratios is bat shit crazy in most coastal areas unless you inherited the home or inherited cash. The amount needed to save up over FHA limits in coastal areas means you need to save a fuck ton when the median family income is roughly $65k or so.

I think it's better to live cheaper and save either way. Sure you could buy in a high appreciation area and then get out with loads of cash, potentially. I can also live in my nice home for about $15k/yr (PITI), invest 25-30% of our income that's maxed out in tax advantaged accounts (401k, IRA, HSA or Roth) and easily beat appreciation on expensive houses. And not deal with tenants for a rental or massive mortgage payments on a primary. We're literally at a stage in life where don't have to think about money. If I was paying $3k plus per month I'd be miserable like most Americans are.

This also allows our hobby of travel and showing our kids different places instead of being stuck in one spot. I'm developing a site currently for group travel. If you build it they will come. It will take a while, but I may share it here eventually, though it could sink the site/my business if some of my thoughts here got out. This is my place to vent, think and learn random new things from you guys.

Patrick says

I never buy stocks on margin because then:

1. I'd have to pay interest on the loan.

Try a small amount you're willing to lose. Remember, margin doesn't have to go back into stocks either. That's how we bought our house ;)

The market seems bat shit crazy to me, but I'm not at all an active investor with any serious money I personally want to control. But maybe try $5k on margin on something you think might pop and create a funny money account where you don't really care if you lose it all.

I started with $4k maybe a decade ago in one account. Have 4-10 stocks at any one time. I've pulled out $20-30k and keep the balance on that one at $4k most the time. Not life changing by any measure, but it's fun. It's where I get into riskier things. Generally all my other stuff outside of business investment is set and forget in tax advantaged accounts. I hate the fees, but I'm ahead of 98% of people for my age so I'm not complaining.

To be fair, I had a uniquely advantageous living situation in Santa Cruz.

I was also self employed for half of the time there and wanted no expensive monthly nut to achieve if I had to bail out, lost clients, lost interest in the grind, etc.

My friends who got jobs for the City or County bought houses and won’t leave, they have pensions worth a couple million bucks and taxes are just taken out like from their paycheck.

Re: margin; the interest rates are rather low actually. I bought GME for $1500 on margin and paid like 5 bucks interest this month. I’m planning on selling it all soon so I’m pleased.

On a $200k account you can get between 1x-3x margin trading depending on the type of stocks you're holding. While Patrick's no margin method is the safest - and everyone who has experienced a margin call before can testify that it's quite hard to come back - I have have been using margin anywhere between $0 and $100k, although these days I try not to cross $30k in margin debt. It has worked out quite well (had 2 or 3 margin calls in the early days of learning how to master margin) and can give you cash to buy lows during a period of days where the market sells off. It's crucial though that you get out of the margin as soon as you see som decent green as in a bear market those days are rare and it could reverse soon after a dead cat bounce. Nevertheless if you stay on top of it margin is a powerful tool, esp. during periods of low interest rates.

WookieMan says

Generally all my other stuff outside of business investment is set and forget in tax advantaged accounts. I hate the fees

What fees? I have a 401k rollover, a Roth, an IRA, and a SEP IRA. I don't pay fees on any of them as far as I can tell. They all just have straight stock or cash, no mutual funds.

Patrick says

What fees? I have a 401k rollover, a Roth, an IRA, and a SEP IRA. I don't pay fees on any of them as far as I can tell. They all just have straight stock or cash, no mutual funds.

Exactly....who pays fees for investments nowadays? Lol

WookieMan says

The market seems bat shit crazy to me, but I'm not at all an active investor with any serious money I personally want to control.

We know :) (that you are not an active investor with any serious money).

As far as the markets go.....every year people (who are not invested) tell you that the market is too high and it will crash. Smart people buy dips, take out the emotions and have a long term view. Dumb people make price predictions in order to tell themselves dont invest it will crash (for instance, "Bitcoin will go to 1.2k"). Those are the same people that buy high and panic sell. That mentality separates the successful people from the not successful people. That's why HODLING and dollar cost averaging works so well. Its a transfer of wealth from the loser to the winners.

WookieMan says

Unless it's your job/business,

this is exactly true; the investing has to be an active effort; some people may not want to do this. There is risk but can build wealth in 1/3 the time that one could otherwise do with stocks into a retirement fund. 10 years vs 30 years to be financially independent.

The problem (or distinction) is in defining real estate activity in an acquired property as a business activity vs an investment is a critical one. Uninformed passive investing doesn't produce any meaningful tax benefits. The value of real estate activity is in reaping the tax benefits; this is ideally a husband wife job. One person earns and the other person shelters the earnings with specific activities as defined by the internal revenue code Section 469.

RE professional implies an actual business, i.e a non-passive activity (not an investment, per se) vs an accredited or sophisticated investor. One can use non-cash losses(depreciation/cost-segregation) and deduct against W-2 income and the other two investors cannot. Over time one could be paying zero in income taxes.

Use RE professional status to build up the wealth and when you no longer need to claim status in long run, start doing 1031s into NNN properties to avoid paying depreciation recapture or larger apartment buildings with fully dedicated property management services.

Having said that, even with 8-10 units, as part of an ongoing business concern, your time is valuable and as such, it is more cost effective to have property managers when running a non-passive business concern (RE professional), as opposed to being a sophisticated or accredited, but ultimately passive investor.

MMR says

this is exactly true; the investing has to be an active effort; some people may not want to do this. There is risk but can build wealth in 1/3 the time that one could otherwise do with stocks into a retirement fund. 10 years vs 30 years to be financially independent.

And this is why I pay people to do it for me. I work less than 20 hours a week on average. Same for the wife. I don't want to spend my time researching the market to invest or working on a property. I want to travel and spend time with my kids. It's also nice having others kiss your ass, take you out to dinner or a beer because you pay them a little bit of money.

I'm on a trajectory to retire at 50 and being able to pull $150k/yr out of retirement funds until 90 if SS is still around with a paid off house. Time is money is the way I look at it. And even if you spend time finding the best investments, it doesn't mean they'll work out and the time was a waste. You can also make huge life changing mistakes on an investment. I've already learned from mine in RE.

I'm in the top 3% overall and inside the 1% for my age. None of it given to us either outside of having decent parents (most important) and a decent education. Every path is different. Mine has worked out very well. The only thing that would risk my future at this point is going gambling on some investment that I don't have full knowledge of. So I'll keep paying people and enjoy life instead of having to wait to enjoy it when I'm old and weak at 65-70.

People need to spend time with the ultra wealthy. Most of them literally do nothing besides call the people they're paying while they're doing their own hobbies and spending time with family/friends. Sometimes it's okay to pay other people to make your own money. And don't take this as bragging. I'm just legit explaining my mindset and how you can get there without having to grind your whole life. You will grind at the beginning for sure, but eventually you have to pay people or taxes. It's inevitable.

My own father had $8-10M in assets at 50. He ran from taxes and got burned by the housing bust. Live frugally and invest and forget has worked wonders for me. He would have been better paying the taxes and just throwing the gains into index funds. Probably would have been $15-20M by now. And again, everyone has their own path, so I'm not knocking what anyone else does. Mine has worked.