r2i forum

Nice article I thought i would share with all on wsj.com....link below (need subscriber access)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282910161870380.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_personalfinance

A Fresh Look at Rent vs. Buy

"Why on Earth would you buy down here when you can rent?" asked a friend of mine in Miami Beach not long ago. "Buying is so over."

He promptly moved to Manhattan for work reasons?and bought a $1 million loft on the Upper West Side.Note the typical behavior. People want to buy when prices are up, and turn more wary when they've collapsed. Logically it makes no sense. Research out Thursday adds some hard numbers.

Real estate website Trulia.com has looked at major real estate markets across the country and asked: Is it cheaper to buy, or to rent?

By Trulia's math my friend was moving in exactly the wrong direction.
Rent in Manhattan: Home prices there are way too high, says Trulia. (Ditto San Francisco.)

Buy in Miami. And Phoenix. And Las Vegas. And most of the other places that have been flattened by the crash. Homes there are cheap compared to rents.

The cross-over point is about 15 times annual rent, the company believes. In other words, as a rough rule of thumb, homes are probably fairly valued in a city when they cost about 15 times a year's rent. So, for example, if you're paying $10,000 a year to rent a place, think twice about buying a home that costs more than $150,000. Dean Baker, economist at the Washington, D.C. think-tank The Center for Economic and Policy Research, came to a similar conclusion in research on the subject in recent years. Fifteen times is the historic average, he said.

So what's the multiple in New York right now?

About 32 times, says Trulia. The average two-bedroom condo or townhouse in New York city costs about 32 times as much to buy as it does to rent. Other major markets over 20 times include Seattle (24 times), San Francisco (22 times) and Portland, Ore. (22 times).

On the other hand Miami list prices are now about eight times annual rents, says Trulia. Phoenix is about 10 times and Las Vegas about 11.

Trulia's data need to be taken with some caveats.

Trulia looked at list prices rather than actual transaction prices, so its figures for prices may be too high.

Furthermore drawing the cut-off point at 15 times rents may be on the low side.

Mr. Baker, in conversation yesterday, said that figure assumes that you're only going to stay in your home for the typical seven years. If you stay a lot longer, he says, the transaction costs of buying and selling become less and less important. That makes owning more attractive.

Nonetheless the Trulia analysis seems directionally correct. Work done by the C.E.P.R. last year came to similar conclusions: Namely that markets like New York and the California coast remained expensive compared to rents, while the hardest hit markets now look cheap.

And Trulia's research emphasizes two points that are absolutely spot on.

First, homeowners need to look first and hardest at present cashflow. The cult of homeownership made no sense. If renting is much cheaper than buying, think seriously about it.

Second: The markets that have fallen the furthest now look like good places to buy, while those that seem to be "safest" aren't. As the saying goes: There is no such thing as a "safe" investment, merely one whose risks are not yet apparent. It's a principle that a lot of people forget time and again.

Write to Brett Arends at [email][email protected][/email]

I would love to hear from ppl above on how the 15x multiple works out when looking at markets such as Bangalore/delhi/hyd etc..
please do note their rationale for why 15x...

i would also add -

The buy-rent ratios for houses are like PE ratios for stocks. To say that there is one critical number is naive. In locations where land values are high and populations are increasing and/or becoming more affluent (like Manhattan) the equilibrium buy-rent ratio will be higher than in places where land is very cheap and populations are declining and/or becoming less affluent (like Las Vegas).

oasis138;293983I would love to hear from ppl above on how the 15x multiple works out when looking at markets such as Bangalore/delhi/hyd etc..
please do note their rationale for why 15x...

Author is talking about US not India. It does not work for India and never will. Rents will always be cheap in India as there is abundance of RE. But price to buy will always be high since small % of people have too much money to invest. And then there is always a perennial problem with black money, which will not let RE crash in India.

returning_indian;293985Author is talking about US not India. It does not work for India and never will. Rents will always be cheap in India as there is abundance of RE. But price to buy will always be high since small % of people have too much money to invest. And then there is always a perennial problem with black money, which will not let RE crash in India.

Yes the article applies to the US and not to India...i doubt we will ever get any hard data on prices for Indian RE given that it takes time and systems to collect such data which we dont in India. I only posted it since it provides an insight into one of the ways people can think about buying vs renting....your point relates to supply demand which is correct as well..

finally nothing will ever work till real estate prices dont have a crash,,,till a bubble dosent burst (assuming we even have 1) things look hunky dory....i would also point out that what you have said (small % of people having enough black money) has always existed in India...its not just a 2000's phenomenon...then why didnt real estate prices go up 20-30% a year every year during 80's and 90's?? there are other factors as well such as income levels; availability of loans etc...

oasis138;293989finally nothing will ever work till real estate prices dont have a crash,,,till a bubble dosent burst (assuming we even have 1) things look hunky dory....i would also point out that what you have said (small % of people having enough black money) has always existed in India...its not just a 2000's phenomenon...then why didnt real estate prices go up 20-30% a year every year during 80's and 90's?? there are other factors as well such as income levels; availability of loans etc...

Well ofcourse easy loans, higher income, inflation, black money etc have to do with such high prices. I blame is primarily on Federal Reserve. They have kept interest rates so low for so long (especially since Bush came in power) that investors from here find it lucrative to invest in India where interest rates are higher. It is worldwide phenomenon and not limited to India. As long as Feds do that, don't expect any slow down in RE speculation. Black money supply has increased tremendously. Bribes which used to be in thousands or lacs are now in crores. I really doubt if its ever going to come down unless country as a whole goes to toilet. For those waiting on sidelines, don't wait. The only crash I see is prices being stagnant for long time. I don't see them coming down.

But generally when we rent, we rent apartments which are about 1000-1200 sq.ft. However, when we buy, we buy SFH which are about 2200-2500 sq. ft. There is a big difference between renting a 1200 sq.ft apartment versus buying a 2500 sq.ft SFH.
This equation of 15x would only work if the real-estate is the same size and type. Most renters usually rent apartments rather than SFH as the need is temporary *and* the apartment gives them other amenities. So, i'm not really sure about this thumb rule. Again, it could vary from city to city or even race to race.

PeterGriffin;294026But generally when we rent, we rent apartments which are about 1000-1200 sq.ft. However, when we buy, we buy SFH which are about 2200-2500 sq. ft. There is a big difference between renting a 1200 sq.ft apartment versus buying a 2500 sq.ft SFH.
This equation of 15x would only work if the real-estate is the same size and type. Most renters usually rent apartments rather than SFH as the need is temporary *and* the apartment gives them other amenities. So, i'm not really sure about this thumb rule. Again, it could vary from city to city or even race to race.

I believe thumb rule is renting a similar house (size ,location amenities etc)

To take an example in Bangalore - I have rented out my 3 BHK apartment for 15K per month and value of the apartment is said to be 55lakhs.

That's about 30X times

Similarly checked for Villa -

Adarsh Palm Retreat - 4BD Villa - for rent. Monthly 1 lakh
http://bangalore.craigslist.co.in/apa/1774546914.html

Similar 4BD villa in Adarsh Palm Retreat is sold for around 3.8 Cr
http://bangalore.quikr.com/Adarsh-Palm-Retreat-Villas-for-sale-W0QQAdIdZ66401365

That's about 31X times

Going my Trulia - Bangalore RE prices is comparable to Manhattan. But infrastructure is quite another story...

billyblue;294051
Adarsh Palm Retreat - 4BD Villa - for rent. Monthly 1 lakh
http://bangalore.craigslist.co.in/apa/1774546914.html

Similar 4BD villa in Adarsh Palm Retreat is sold for around 3.8 Cr
http://bangalore.quikr.com/Adarsh-Palm-Retreat-Villas-for-sale-W0QQAdIdZ66401365
That's about 31X times

Going my Trulia - Bangalore RE prices is comparable to Manhattan. But infrastructure is quite another story...

BB - It would be obscenely insane for somebody to rent a place for 1 Lakh in this day and age. If you had a poll and asked the people on this forum, i doubt if you would have 10% of the people who would rent it. With regards to buying a 3.8Cr. property, i would stick with the same percentage. 3.8Cr. is an ass load of money! I'm sure burglars might love to loot one of these houses given the fact that the owners are multi-crorepathis!

Damn it, i've H&B'd again!

I would again highlight a couple of points made in the article -

The cross-over point is about 15 times annual rent, the company believes. In other words, as a rough rule of thumb, homes are probably fairly valued in a city when they cost about 15 times a year's rent.
This is for the US on average though as the article mentions there is wide variance around it based on city/locality etc....when the multiple if not 15x it could be either the prices are too high/low or the rents are too high or low...so multiple scenarios...


Mr. Baker, in conversation yesterday, said that figure assumes that you're only going to stay in your home for the typical seven years. If you stay a lot longer, he says, the transaction costs of buying and selling become less and less important. That makes owning more attractive.--------------------------goes towards why 15x is the median and not 12x or 17x...my interpretation is that at 15x you take around 7 years to break even and then 7 years are for gains....do correct me if i'm wrong.

i would argue that if a 55 lakhs house can be rented for 15k then either rents are too low or prices are too high just based on the 15x median....i have never heard of what the median is in India..i dont anyone in India keeps this data systematically or even it they do its free from data errors/biases etc......