 |
bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
|
|
SPONSORED LINKS
Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com
YOUR AD HERE
|
|
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the
associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed
or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information
provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed.
As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against
multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed
belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CL
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:28 pm GMT Post subject: Economist Blog entry |
 |
|
http://www.economist.com/node/21553459
From Economist blog. There is a couple ideas I find very interesting.
1. They cited a research which looks at the fundamental value of a house not using price/income or price/rent multiples, but the net present value of all future rent (similar to a DCF analysis of a company). When rate falls, the discount rate of rental income is lower so it should boost the value, but if the rate falling is due to a weakening economy, the rental income itself will drop. Thus it is not clear whether rate up/down has a linear relationship with price movement.
2. It cited study that, over the long terms, houses, like gold, should track inflation (i.e. real house price should be flat). So a good store of value but not a good investment.
3. Good comparison with European countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 1826
Location: Greater Boston
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:34 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
They cited a research which looks at the fundamental value of a house not using price/income or price/rent multiples, but the net present value of all future rent (similar to a DCF analysis of a company).
|
That's interesting and probably the foundation for a good way to do it if you have a good way to predict all future rents (which is a big if, unfortunately). I would think it should be all future rents minus costs, though. I skimmed the paper linked from the Economist post and didn't see anything to indicate that carrying costs and transactions costs were subtracted. That's probably OK if you're just doing a comparison to other time periods and countries, as they were, but the costs would be essential to deriving the fundamental value.
| Quote: |
It cited study that, over the long terms, houses, like gold, should track inflation (i.e. real house price should be flat).
|
That sounds reasonable too, I would just add that this is also before costs are subtracted. Carrying costs are not insignificant at ~1% annually for property taxes and ~1% for maintenance. There are also transaction costs - the 6% Realtor commission spread over the average owning period of 7 years is close to ~1% when annualized, and I just round to that mentally anyway given the other transaction costs. So that's around 3% a year total, or maybe 2% if you can stay put permanently.
- admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
