The Financial Genome Project (FGP) is an ambitious project designed to map out the entire financial genome. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a comparison to the Human Genome Project. Too many of us try to navigate through the financial world without knowing where weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re going. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like playing Monopoly with a group of friends and not knowing all the rules.
This what your Financial Genome Project Blog Ad will look like to visitors! Of course you will want to use keywords and ad targeting to get the most out of your ad campaign! So purchase an ad space today before there all gone!
notice: Total Ad Spaces Available: (2) ad spaces remaining of (2)
“Repeat after me: Your house is not an asset.” ~Robert KiyosakiWe’ve discussed home ownership and the home building industry in the last couple of chapters (see the Table of Contents). In this chapter, I want to visually display how complex the home building industry is by oversimplifying it. All the amounts are fictional and rounded. … Continue reading "Chapter 24 – Home Building Industry Oversimplified" The post Chapter 24 – Home Building Industry Oversimplified...
“Repeat after me: Your house is not an asset.” ~Robert Kiyosaki
We’ve discussed home ownership and the home building industry in the last couple of chapters (see the Table of Contents). In this chapter, I want to visually display how complex the home building industry is by oversimplifying it. All the amounts are fictional and rounded. All the percentage rates will also be fictional and easy to calculate. We’ll ignore all the extra stuff like taxes, fees, and insurance. Let’s dive into the home building industry oversimplified.
Like nearly everything in the Financial Genome, it starts with the federal government, specifically the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department determining interest rates and how much a bank must have in reserves (or actual cash). Let’s say we have a bank with $10,000,000 dollars in cash. The federal government says banks must have 10% reserves at all times before loaning money to people. This bank has $10,000,000 which means it can loan out $90,000,000. Just like that, $90,000,000 appeared in our economy.
Now, let’s say there’s a home building company. It wants to buy land, build homes, and then sell the homes. The company has $10,000,000 in cash and applies for what’s known as a jumbo corporate loan. The bank requires a 10% down payment, so with the $10,000,000 in cash it has, the company takes out a $100,000,000 loan. The home builder gives $10,000,000 to the bank in cash as a down payment and the bank gives the home builder a $100,000,000 loan (technically, the home builder only took out a $90,000,000 loan, but this is an oversimplification). Wait, how did that happen? Didn’t we just say that the bank only had $90,000,000 to give out because it has to keep $10,000,000 in reserves? Yes, but with the home builder giving the bank $10,000,000 in cash as a deposit, the bank now has $20,000,000. It can now loan out $180,000,000 dollars. And just like that, with only $20,000,000 in cash, there’s $180,000,000 extra dollars in the economy.
So, now the home builder company has a $100,000,000 loan. The bank charges a 1.2% annual interest rate on the loan. That’s .1% a month. Remember, this is an oversimplification, which as I’m typing this, I realize I’m failing already. So, .1% interest rate on a $100,000,000 loan is $100,000 a month. Home builders usually take 1-2 years before selling their first home, so they ask for additional money from investors. Let’s say investors give the home builder $1,200,000 in cash to pay the bank for the first year of home building. In month 1, the home builder pays the bank $100,000 in cash. With only being required to maintain 10% cash reserves, the bank can take that $100,000 and loan an additional $900,000. $900,000 isn’t enough money to give to home building companies, but it is enough to loan individuals money to buy homes.
After year 1, the home builder paid $1,200,000 in cash, which allowed the bank to loan out $10,800,000 to individuals ($12,000,000 less the 10% cash reserves). In one year, an additional $190,800,000 appeared in our economy from only $21,200,000 of cash. The home builder completed its first home and is ready to sell it to you. The bank only requires a 3.5% down payment (not exactly fictional). Your new house costs $200,000, so you need $7,000 in cash. You give the bank $7,000 in cash and the bank gives you $200,000. The bank can now loan an additional $63,000 ($70,000 less $7,000 is $63,000). You give the home builder $200,000 and the house in yours. Congratulations!
The home builder’s monthly payment to the bank is only $100,000 a month and you just gave it $200,000. That $100,000 difference is the home builder’s oversimplified profit. In reality, the homebuilder determines profit by taking what it sold that individual house to you for less the cost of the individual house to build. In my oversimplified explanation, I’m actually showing what’s known as the Statement of Cash Flows.
As you can see, as long as the home building industry is operating positively, the true money maker is the bank. The more loans it gives out, the more cash it generates, which allows the banks to loan out more money. This process can keep going until something changes.
The Federal Government has complete control of the home building industry, and ultimately, its citizen’s ability to buy a house. If the reserve requirement goes up, less money can be loaned out. If interest rates go up, loans become more expensive. Additionally, if the Federal Government doesn’t properly address employment, less people will buy new homes or will default on their loans. This limits cash in the system and reduces the ability for banks to loan money.
I wanted you to have a solid, albeit oversimplified, understanding of this concept because the next chapter will be slightly controversial. Readers of Robert Kiyosaki’s “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” were shocked to hear that their home was not an asset. The American Dream of owning a home wasn’t what we thought it was.
The post Chapter 24 – Home Building Industry Oversimplified appeared first on Financial Genome Project.
“The ache for home lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.” ~Maya AngelouIn Chapter 22 – Land Ownership, we discussed the commoditization of land on our planet. The land can be owned by an individual, a company, or a government. Land is typically … Continue reading "Chapter 23 – Home Building" The post Chapter 23 – Home Building appeared first on Financial Genome...
“The ache for home lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.” ~Maya Angelou
In Chapter 22 – Land Ownership, we discussed the commoditization of land on our planet. The land can be owned by an individual, a company, or a government. Land is typically taken from native people by a conquering government. Sometimes this is done by force, and sometimes this is done simply by squatting. These methods are how much of the middle and west U.S. was colonized. It wasn’t until the Homestead Act of 1862 did the American government come up with real guidelines of what land ownership entailed. In most developed countries, the government piece-and-parcels the land out to its citizens. The most common usage of this commoditized land is to build homes. In this chapter, we’re going to focus on the home building industry.
The majority of home building activity is done by large public companies and small, but highly resourced, private companies. There are hundreds of small, privately financed companies and, in 2006, the ten biggest homebuilders represented 35% of new houses being built. Both types of companies get loans, buy huge amounts of land, and then build properties on the land. Individual home owners go through a similar process of securing a loan to buy a home. It’s fascinating to me that all this is done primarily through the transfer of debt with little actual cash trading hands.
Typically, changes in local employment availability will determine the local home building industry. Wealth distribution typically determines the size and quality of the homes in each area. I say typically, because a cliché, but true, saying when it comes to building a home is “location, location, location.” This means that home buyers may place equal weight on a specific location as some buyers would put on tangible considerations like schools, crime rates, value, etc. These ideal locations and places with superior tangible considerations means home buyers will sometimes suffer long commutes. Los Angeles continues to rank #1 in the worst commutes in both distance and quality.
Commutes can also be impacted by local population density. For example, friends that live in the Texas, live in neighborhoods where homes come with one acre per home. My previous home in Bossier City, Louisiana has more tightly packed neighborhoods with a small backyard and above average sized backyard. In Washington D.C./Virginia, where I currently live, there are townhomes which are physically connected to each other. There are almost no front yards and the back yards are as big as a large closet. The city seems to have more people than available housing.
When cities start running out of available housing, the prices will start to rise quickly. I’m paying three times as much for the same size house in Virginia than I was in Louisiana, despite the Virginia house being 60-years older. This, of course, is supply and demand. Housing prices are impacted by changes with supply and demand, sometimes independent of each other. For example, in California, the demand can be high irrespective to the available supply which drives up the prices of similar houses. Some cities are in unfavorable locations and have an adequate supply, but the demand is missing which lowers the price of housing. For example, the mayor Akron, Ohio, says “We have a city of 200,000, with the capacity for 300,000.”
Individuals build homes as well. Instead of a conventional home loan, individuals receive construction loans. Once the house is built, these are converted to traditional loans. There’s quite a bit of conflicting data available on whether it’s cheaper to build your own home versus buying it from a home builder. Conventional advice suggests that the more customization or niche demands you have (i.e., off the grid requirements or ornate finishing) the more building your own home becomes cheaper. If you’re fine with the homogenous design and features offered by a home builder, then you’ll more than likely save money buying the house.
In 2014, 50,000 individuals built their own homes.  To me, it’s not important how many people built their own homes. I do think it’s important to focus on how the home building industry is founded largely around debt. If you’re a frequent reader of this website, you know that the entire Financial Genome is built on the belief that the whole system is real (and legitimate), and it’s enforced by a government. If either of these two conditions cease to exist, or are weakened in any way, the entire system gets put at risk. I’ll save apocalyptic planning and the lack of a government for another chapter, so we’ll keep the enforcement by our government intact. In 2008, we got a glimpse of what happens when people get insight into how complicated and crazy our system truly is, and what happens when our beliefs are challenged.
For most people, the dream of owning a home is simple, and we assume the system that supports the dream is also simple. A company buys land from the local, state, and federal government. A company builds a house on that land and sells it to you. You buy the house and have achieved the “American dream”. This is how it would work in an all-cash system which we don’t have. We have something less secure, and the USA saw it unfold in 2008.
We’ll stay out of the political and ideological arguments in this chapter, but I believe the start of the 2008 financial collapse actually started in 1995 when President Bill Clinton changed the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to lend to more low-income families. This started a slow departure from what banks were willing to risk when they issued loans, the risk people were willing to take in getting loans, and finally, what practices the government were willing to enforce.
To force banks to loan to low-income families, the government provided default protection to many banks. This made banks more comfortable with taking risk and issuing loans. With interest rates dropping, people felt they could take more risk with a mortgage, despite the rapidly rising housing prices. People were focused more on the monthly mortgage payment and less on the purchase price of the home. Banks saw this as an opportunity and provided alternate mortgage types to keep the focus on the monthly mortgage payments such as Adjustable Rate Mortgages and even Interest Only mortgages. The euphoria was so great that banks starting loaning money to people with barely any income.
Banks realized that the government only provided insurance on a small percentage of the loans, so other banks provided more insurance to help banks loan more money. The insurance premiums were low because the insurance policies invested in mortgages that were bundled and traded like stocks. These insurance policies became so popular that the insurance companies started to need their own insurance policies. Resultingly, banks started providing re-insurance policies that were cheap because they too were invested in these securitized mortgage bundles. The government enforced it all and also invested in the securitized mortgage bundles. In less than two years, the bubble popped in 2008.
The home building industry came to a screeching halt. Home building companies and the banks that primarily dealt with home financing went bankrupt and either disappeared or were bought out by bigger banks. That was an oversimplified version of what actually happened, but the basics are all there. It changed the whole fabric of America…or did it?
In 2019, we’re facing similar issues. There are slight variations that may protect us this time such as increased down payment requirements. A 20% down payment used to be the standard for home buying. This protected the buyer, the bank, and the home builder by providing more cash (and liquidity) into the system. Banks are required to have greater cash reserves when they loan to home builders and home buyers now. The government is slightly more awake this time.
The home building industry is interesting. For the most part, it’s an industry built entirely on loans with barely an cash transferring in the system. If you’re thinking about purchasing a home in the next five years, it’s important to evaluate the home building industry for trends. One of my favorite sayings in personal finance class was, “A house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.” This was important to me because many people fall into a trap of thinking a house has an intrinsic value to it and your mind anchors on that imaginary price. Also, the saying should be changed to “…willing and able to pay for it.” If the economy is in a recession, there may not be someone able to buy a house and get the loan for it.
Over the next couple of weeks, I will be working to create a feed of important reports that Wall Street and economists normally read. I’ll update this chapter when that feature is available.
THE MOTIVATION “A choice architect has the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions.” ~Richard ThalerI’ve spent nearly two decades helping people with their finances. The most common feedback I receive is, “I never knew about this. I wish someone taught me this before.” This is where the motivation came from to … Continue reading "Motivation" The post Motivation appeared first on Financial Genome...
“A choice architect has the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions.” ~Richard Thaler
I’ve spent nearly two decades helping people with their finances. The most common feedback I receive is, “I never knew about this. I wish someone taught me this before.” This is where the motivation came from to start my website. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of personal finance blogs and websites. There’s significantly less economic websites and blogs, but there are still many. The motivation behind this website is to combine the information from economic websites and the recommendations from personal finance sites to help you navigate your way through the Financial Genome.
You can read more about the motivation for this site on my About page. The inspiration came from my interest in visual graphics of economic data. The chart below specifically caught my eye. It’s a couple of years old now, but it shows the consolidation of the companies involved with the world’s mass-food production. They key takeaway of the picture is that only about 10 companies control the world’s commercial food production. That was fascinating to me, and I wanted to tell everyone. So, I started a website.
For now, this website is a simple blog. I have a full-time job, I’m married, and have kids, so I’m limited to publishing one article a month. I’d like for this site to develop into an interactive website where people can explore any aspect of the Financial Genome. For example, if you were interested in food production, you could navigate through the picture above and all the stock symbols and other financial information of those companies. This would show you other fascinating data such as ~11% or $18.4B of Coca-Cola’s stock is owned by Berkshire Hathaway—the company managed by the famous investor Warren Buffet.
The motivation isn’t just to show you the financial aspect of the world around us. I’d also like to explore how different people can exert influence on the financial genome around us. For example, in the picture below, someone graphed out the conspiracy-theory fueled obsession with the Bilderberg Group. This group is rumored to control the world using their massive wealth, power, influence, political affiliation, and positions. It’s difficult to see, but you can do a Google image search for “high-res Bilderberg Group” and zoom in.
I mentioned that this Bilderberg Group is conspiracy-theory fueled because according to normal news stations, this group is just an advisory council that meets regularly in lavish settings. It reminds me of an award show for the wealthiest people in the world. Some of the people involved in our generation’s biggest conspiracies attend these meetings, such as the Rothschild family (believed to be the wealthiest family in the world ever by conspiracy theorists). So, if you wanted to research these conspiracies you would have to sift mostly through mainstream media. The picture below gives you a good indication of who actually owns the mainstream media.
In this picture, the bigger circles own the smaller circles. The internet and television are the primary sources people get their information, so basically Disney, NBC, and CBS own most of the world’s televised media. You can find similar graphics showing who owns just the news websites. Some of these companies are public companies with public shares being traded and owned and some are private companies. Wealthy people can own controlling interests in these companies and control the information we use to research these same people. It’s not just individual companies or people I’d like to track either.
Countries and governments control large amounts of commodities, companies, and political interests. These are done primarily through Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs). The graphic below is a quick snapshot of the growth of SWFs since 2000. Some of these SWFs are bigger than countries, in terms of assets under management.
My end goal is to have a website and/or app that combines the tracking services of personal finances sites such as Mint while overlaying your specific impact to the financial genome all the way up to a Sovereign Wealth Fund. What could you do with this information? The primary goal is to allow people to make better decisions. Not all entities in the Financial Genome are nefarious, but many are self-serving. I’d like to expose all your options so you know how the impact of your decisions. Borrowing a term, I read in the book, “Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness,” I’d like to improve the choice architecture in the Financial Genome.
I’ll unlikely be able to increase article production beyond one a month, so you can expect at least one a month. I’d like to refine my stock tracker so it’s more interactive. The motivation of the Financial Genome Project was not to be a solo affair. I’d like to start creating a team of people creating content and developing interactivity of the website. I hope you find the information interesting, and that you support the project by Liking the posts and Sharing it with your friends on all the social media platforms. Thanks for all your support in 2018!
Land Ownership “Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark.” ~Walter LippmanWe’ve spent many chapters talking about housing expenses, renting, home ownership, and then took a deep dive into the rental market. Before going any further, it’s important to understand what real estate and housing really are. The basis … Continue reading "Chapter 22 – Land Ownership" The post Chapter 22 – Land Ownership appeared first on Financial...
“Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark.” ~Walter Lippman
We’ve spent many chapters talking about housing expenses, renting, home ownership, and then took a deep dive into the rental market. Before going any further, it’s important to understand what real estate and housing really are. The basis of real estate is the land on our planet and the subject of land ownership.
Our planet has land surface and as a global society, we’ve endowed other humans to commoditize and own that land. These ruling class humans sell the land to other humans, usually for a profit, and/or amass greater quantities of land. We’ve also given power to governments which can also own land. Throughout history, civilizations and governments have taken over the land of other civilizations and governments. The victors take over the land and establish a society and government, and then promote land ownership.
Governments then create borders around the land it believes it owns, and then as a global society, we accept this fact. The land is named, and its people now belong to the continent, country, federal government, state, city, and community. Owning land is perhaps ingrained in us through our animal instincts—with a strong connection to group territoriality. In many cultures, owning land is a source of power and a public display of one’s wealth.
Federal, state, and local governments then zone the land and decide which parts of the land should be used for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. Zoning is actually quite complicated and the government can decide specific requirements as to the type of buildings allowed, location of utility lines, restrictions on accessory buildings, building setbacks from the streets and other boundaries, size and height of buildings, and even the number of rooms.
Like we mentioned in the previous chapter, this whole process is called commoditization. Land is piece and parceled and then sold and owned. The land owner gets the property zoned and then keeps it intact or builds on it. If it’s residential property, typically a home or apartment building is built and then an owner can buy that specific lot of land where the house and building are located.
The government also owns land for its federal agencies and for national parks through the Department of Interior or a foreign government’s equivalent. Except for federally-owned land, land owners pay property taxes to state governments. The property taxes are normally used for road construction and maintenance, local government staff salaries, police, fire fighters, and local public works. For effectively-ran states, property taxes stay local, but some states centralize the funding at the state level. This can sometimes lead to local communities not being maintained properly according to the property taxes paid.
Some people own a lot of land. In the United States, John Malone owns the most land with a staggering 2.2 million acres. You can see a list of the people who own the most land in the US here. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/these-people-own-most-of-americas-lands/ss-AAzDXvk) Globally, the Catholic Church owns the most land, more than the size of France, 71.6 million hectares. A hectare is the size of two football fields (not the stadium) side by side.
Why is land ownership important? If you remember from Chapter 19, I said you are important to the Financial Genome. We’ve established imaginary borders, with individual languages, cultures, and socioeconomic systems. You can own a piece of this world, and our society and its laws, recognize and support your ownership. Through ownership, you can exert influence on others. We all believe in the system of land ownership and abide by it. How does one person own 2.2 million acres of land? We, as a society, accept it and enforce private property laws to support his ownership.
Civilization, society, and power are only thinly kept together. We see small slivers of humanity quickly collapse regularly. On a small scale, there are hundreds of videos of animal-like behavior during Black Friday shopping. People getting injured and killed for some arbitrary product.
On a larger scale, Americans experienced the carnage of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. Days after the deadly hurricane, humans had to worry about other humans looting, raping, and killing each other. The rule of law no longer applied even after the hurricane had passed.
What would happen to the belief of land ownership during an apocalyptic event? Would we still accept the Catholic Church’s or Mr. Malone’s property ownership? Would the borders of a country matter anymore? If the show The Walking Dead came true, would zombies know about borders? Are animals born in the United States “American” or does this apply to humans only?
Barring a Black Friday event on your property, a natural disaster, or an apocalyptic event, one of the key tenants of a solid personal financial plan is to own things. In most developed countries, housing and land tend to appreciate over time. These assets can be passed onto your children when you pass away, creating a financial legacy. You can be a part of a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) and vote on the future of your neighborhood.
In reality, banks own most of the property in the world. Property and real estate are mostly owned through financing in which the bank actually owns the property until the loan is paid off in full. You may have equity in the property, but the banks still owns it. That being said, you still have all the responsibility for maintaining the property and securing it. In a more somber reality, the government actually owns all the land in its borders and can exercise eminent domain. This is the authority for a government to seize private property for public use, with “compensation.” I put compensation in quotes, because historically, governments have not provided fair compensation, and sometimes the compensation is your life. We’ll discuss this in greater detail in future chapters.
I find the whole system surrounding the belief of land ownership fascinating, and an important break in our articles. At any time, you are occupying a part of land owned by a person or entity. I imagine for those that don’t own any property, this idea is overwhelming and enslaving. I imagine the opposite is true for those that own property; the idea is freeing and empowering. I own a house on a small parcel of land, and it is indeed freeing and empowering.
“I figure if I have my health, can pay the rent and I have my friends, I call in ‘content’” ~Lauren Bacall (Actress) In Chapter 8 – Renting, we introduced renting as part of your expenses. Then in the previous chapter, we explored the rental market even further. In this chapter, I want to go … Continue reading "Chapter 21 – Renting vs. Buying" The post Chapter 21 – Renting vs. Buying appeared first on Financial Genome...
“I figure if I have my health, can pay the rent and I have my friends, I call in ‘content’” ~Lauren Bacall (Actress)
In Chapter 8 – Renting, we introduced renting as part of your expenses. Then in the previous chapter, we explored the rental market even further. In this chapter, I want to go even deeper into the renting vs. buying decision. I often hear the common, yet incorrect, saying of, “renting is throwing your money away.” I disagree—the decision of renting vs. buying, like all financial decisions, is based off timing.
In Chapter 7 – Housing, we discussed that all housing expenses shouldn’t exceed 35% of your (post-tax) income. So, before you decide on whether you want to rent or buy, you should first focus on making sure you don’t exceed 35% of your income. Renting vs. buying comes with different expenses that may encompass that 35%.
Renting a property includes paying your rent, utilities, and renter’s insurance. Rent is normally higher than a mortgage. Unless the property owner pays for a utility, utilities are the same whether you’re buying or renting. Renter’s insurance is normally lower than homeowner’s insurance because renter’s insurance pays for all your belongings inside the house and the damage you may or may not cause the home. Homeowner’s insurance is for both your belongings and the property itself.
When you know how much 35% of your income will be, the next thing that you should research is home prices. Dramatic decreases in home prices can instantly wipe away wealth and rapidly increase the financial risk of property owners. In the 2008 housing collapse, many properties saw a 50% reduction of home values from their tops. In my hometown of Rosamond, California, average prices went from $300,000 to a low of $165,000.
If you had bought at the height, you would’ve lost $135,000 in less than 9 years. Renting would’ve shielded you from that massive loss—especially if you renegotiated the rent as the housing prices fell. Additionally, buying a house costs quite a bit of upfront money. There are paperwork costs, down payments, realtor fees, and upfront taxes.
Suze Orman has 4 signs why you shouldn’t buy and one of them is those large upfront costs. Another is if you have a lower credit score. It’s not just the upfront costs that can be worrisome either. There are routine costs like Homeowner’s Association (HOA) fees and repairs. When you take out a mortgage, the interest rate depends on how much you put down and your credit score. When you rent, your credit score is a simple “to rent or not to rent,” and lower credit scores are more easily forgiven when renting.
With interest rates being so low these last several years, the U.S. Census Bureau shows U.S home ownership is at near highs with 64.3% of Americans “owning” their home. I put owning in quotes because many Americans don’t actually own their homes. The banks do. While mortgage debt-to-GDP rate is lower than the high in 2010, our real mortgage debt is higher than it’s ever been. As interest rates rise, we’ll probably see a rise in foreclosures and short sales, and then a drop in the home ownership rate.
This is a lot to consider for renting vs. buying, but luckily enough, many finance sites have rent-to-buy calculators. My favorite is here at Nerdwallet.com. The assumptions are listed at the bottom if you want to dive deeper into the calculations. Michael Dinich, at Your Money Geek, as a great article using Smart Asset’s tool. Like NerdWallet’s calculator is breaks down all the costs associated with buying a house and compares it to a renter paying rent and renter’s insurance. Both of these sites give you an estimate and I recommend running through these calculators before making the decision of renting vs. buying.
A 20% down payment is a major part of the factor. Typically, the deposit a renter pays is the first month’s rent and they receive the back when they move, assuming there’s no property damage. You may have lost pennies on interest you could’ve earned, but it’s not a sunk cost into renting. 20% down payments help homeowners avoid the Premium Mortgage Insurance (PMI) and get the lower interest rates.
Down payments are great for lowering the loan cost, but can disappear instantly if house prices crash. Once you put the money down, it lowers the value of the loan, but has no impact on the price of the home. Remaining loan balance isn’t a factor for nearly any home buyers, and in many states is not known to potential buyers. In the price history of my hometown, shown above, 20% of a $300,000 house is $60,000. Your entire down payment plus an additional $75,000 was an unrealized loss if you sold ($60,000 down payment + $75,000 additional loss = $135,000 the loss mentioned above).
This is one of the assumptions of rent vs. buy calculators. Conversely, if home prices come up, then down payments provide high returns and is one of the reasons owning properties is a staple in the financial world. For example, if you put $20,000 down on a house that costs $100,000 and it goes up $50,000 in value in 3 years, then you made 250% gain with just $20,000 invested. This “quick money” is what attracted so many investors to the housing market prior to the 2008 collapse. Many banks started offering no-down payment or interest-only loans, so there was little-to-no cash outlay for people to make tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in just a couple of years.
Renters experience an opportunity cost when there are rising home values. If you look at the price history above, if you started renting in 2000 when the house prices were at $85,000, then you would’ve missed the rapid increase to $300,000 by 2006. But still, the renter would’ve walked away with zero liability. And this is the bottom line for renters perfectly said here on the MD Wealth Management site, “ Renting offers greater flexibility, both in a life sense (peace of mind knowing you aren’t responsible for the furnace when it breaks) and in a financial sense.” One of the best parts about renting is not having to worry about paying for repairs, which in some cases can be extremely costly.
One of the real risks to renting, like I mentioned in the previous chapter (link), is the over-commoditization of properties. Due to the interest rates being so low for so long, large companies called Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) have bought many properties and can provide subpar customer service to its renters because of how massive these companies are.
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS (REITS) INTRODUCTION
I’m excited to announce a new feature of the website and that’s the Financial Genome Project stock tracker. A key part of the financial genome are the companies and the shares they distribute (stocks). We’ll go into what stocks are in a later chapter, but this is a good time to introduce the largest apartment REITs just to get a glimpse of the scale of the commoditization of properties.
REITs own approximately 511K properties across the United States. Now, these are whole properties such as an apartment building and I wasn’t able to get data on how many individual units that are owned by REITs. In June of 2018, REITs owned approximately $3 trillion in real estate assets which is about 10% of the U.S.’s $31.8 trillion real estate market.
10% doesn’t seem like much, but remember, 64.3% of all properties are owned by actual homeowners, which is $20.4 trillion of the $31.8 trillion total value. This means that $11.4 trillion of that is people renting. REITs own about $3 trillion of that $11.4 trillion or 26.3%. So, 1 out of 4 properties for rent is owned by a REIT.
It would be unfair to say all rental units owned by large companies have poor customer service. Like any purchase, you’d have to do your research. And it would also be unfair to say all homeowners provide good customer service, especially, given my own personal story I shared in the previous chapter with an elderly, inattentive homeowner.
Here’s a new part of the website. I predict that apartment REITs will see higher revenue and profits, even as rents fall, when interest rates lower the amount of property owners. You can navigate to our new stock tracker and see the quality of my economic predictions. For now, this is just me providing my analysis, but in the future, I’d like an economist forum to weigh in and provide predicative analysis for my readers.
The five largest apartment REITs according to Seeking Alpha are Avalon Bay Communities (AVB), Equity Residential (EQR), Essex Property Trust (ESS), Mid-America Apartment Communities (MAA), and UDR (UDR). You can track these stocks on my new stock tracker.
Renting vs. buying is a big decision. I hope this deeper dive into the rental market provided some useful tips before making the decision. We also went over a brief introduction in REITs and introduced my new stock tracker.
DISCLOSURE: I don’t personally own any of the REITs mentioned in this article. These stocks are for information only and not recommendations.
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” ~Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations In Chapter 8 – Renting, we discussed reasons why renting makes financial sense: it’s for … Continue reading "Chapter 20 – Exploring the Rental Market" The post Chapter 20 – Exploring the Rental Market appeared first on Financial Genome...
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” ~Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
In Chapter 8 – Renting, we discussed reasons why renting makes financial sense: it’s for the short term, you may not have enough money for a solid down payment, or it’s the rare case that the cost of renting is cheaper than buying. Additionally, some people don’t want the liability of a mortgage or they like the freedom of renting. Either way, in this chapter, we’ll further explore the rental market.
Normal financial advice recommends all housing costs should account for/take up no more than 35% of your (post-tax) income. We discussed this principle in depth in Chapter 7 – Housing. When you’re renting, the costs normally include the initial security deposit (usually amounting to the cost of one month’s rent), monthly rent, and utilities not covered by the property (or rental contract). You don’t have to pay for any repairs except for some minor wear and tear, but renters should carefully read the details of the contract for specifics of repair responsibility. Some renters treat the property like it’s their own, however, others may have little regard for the property. For many property owners, having tenants destroying their property is their #1 fear of owning a property.
If you are a property owner, you calculate rental yield by 12 months of rent divided by the value of the home. If you plan on renting out your property, you should consider the average rental yields for your state. Rental yields are affected by interest rates, and the market’s supply and demand. Most property owners look for passive income generated by renting their property, and capital appreciation of the property by using the rental income to pay down the mortgage and/or the home value going up over time. If you’re a renter, you’re providing the rental income, while the house may or may not appreciate. Property owners retain all the risk and profits of the rental, while the renter retains less risk but typically doesn’t “profit” by renting.
Although it’s rare, some cities with little demand for home ownership may see mortgage costs exceed rental costs. In this case, renters profit off the opportunity cost (or gain in this case) by choosing the cheaper option. This is a trade off between renting and buying: over the long term, renting doesn’t contribute towards the renter’s net worth, but there’s also a lot less risk or liability incurred.
Remember in Chapter 8 – Renting we discussed that there are different types of property owners. You have an owner, which is an individual that owns one or several properties; private investors are companies that invest in properties to rent out; and public companies which invest in properties such as Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT).
In Chapter 19 – Economic Power of an Individual we discussed that you have economic power in the financial genome. As a renter, you have a lot of power over an individual property owner that owns a single property. Bad renters can cause significant damage, they may not pay or be late on rent, or they can continuously call for repairs that are basic wear and tear. For those who own many properties, risk is decreased as there are more properties that may have good renters, depending on how good the tenant screen policies are. Without proper screen policies, the risk may increase if there are more renters. Conversely, being a good renter to that individual with one property can positively impact the owner and contribute to his or her future financial goals.
We discussed that people can positively or negatively influence your financial goals as well. As there are good and bad renters, there are also good and bad property owners. For example, I rented a house from an elderly property owner who did not use a property management company and it was an unpleasant experience for my family. He was unresponsive to maintenance issues and difficult to work through administrative processes.
Some property management companies professionally manage apartments or condos and can provide a pleasant, professional experience, while some company portfolios are so large that customer satisfaction is irrelevant to the company, leading to a negative experience for the renter. Similar to my experience with my property owner, these companies can also be unresponsive to maintenance issues or have complicated contracts leaving tenants with outrageous miscellaneous costs.
I’d like to discuss the economic power and influence a property owner and a renter have on the financial genome separately. But before I can do that, I want to discuss how money works. This will be a subject discussed in many Financial Genome chapters in the future.
In most developed countries, we have central banks that uses fractional reserve banking. This means someone deposits $100 in a bank and then the bank can use $900 in loans. So, at any time, any bank in a developed country only actually has a fraction in reserves. We as humans all agree that the $900 is real and is part of different types of money calculations. Similarly, as a property owner, you gave a bank a deposit and they give you a loan to buy a property. The only actual money is the initial reserve in issuing bank and the deposit the property owner gave the bank.
The bank uses a small amount of deposit (its reserve) to lend a large amount of money to property owners to give to other banks. The receiving banks can then use that money to make other larger loans. The real money is paid monthly with interest back to the banks. All the other money is tracked with modern accounting, enforced by our laws, and our acceptance in the process.
As mentioned above, property owners could be individuals, private companies that own many properties, or public companies (REITs). The owner may or may not have a loan on the property, but will always pay property taxes. Under ideal conditions, the rent charged covers the loan payment, escrow, taxes, possibly a property manager, and profit.
From an annual average high of 16.63% in 1981 to an annual average low of 3.66% in 2012, interest rates on loans and the down-payment requirements were so low that it was more financially advantageous to buy a house than to rent. Now that interest rates are increasing and down-payment requirements are increasing, renting may become more viable. However, the biggest factor facing property owners is they own all the risk.
Property owner risk comes from the possibility of defaulting on the mortgage loan, property damage, and defaulting on taxes. The traditional “American Dream” means owning a house. While I believe home ownership is an essential part of financial planning, it must be at the right time and under the right conditions, or else comes with the risks I mentioned above, possibly destroying your financial plans. Vanilla, mainstream financial advice often carelessly minimizes the real risk owning a property.
For example, if you buy a stock for $5,000, you face the risk of losing the entire $5,000. But you are protected from losing more than that initial investment. If you mortgage a property that’s overvalued, then you face the risk of losing money you never had in the first place. For example, you buy an overvalued house for $300,000 and the real estate market drops, you may now own a house that is only worth $200,000, but you STILL have a $300,000 mortgage on a property that you can only sell for $200,000! You just assumed a $100,000 loss on the mortgage loan. You’ll remember that this reality came true for millions of Americans in the 2008 housing and financial collapse.
Owning properties allows you to exert influence on others in many ways, the first being by setting rent prices. If you own only a few properties, then the rent charged is limited to what the market will allow for your location. If you own many properties or own a company that owns many properties, then you can influence the overall market. Large private and public companies can not only influence the local rent market, but they can drive the overall market, increasing or decreasing rent prices as they’d like to increase profits.
Some individuals, companies, and REITs do exactly this: they buy up as many properties as they can for a location and then choose the rent price they want for the type of tenants they want. Some companies buy apartments or single-family homes, partnering with the United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) office. The intent is to provide low-cost housing for people in need. This program is great, but comes with risks. Sometimes the low-cost housing tenants have little regard for the homes or apartments. Also, in the case of my own hometown, the affordable housing brings crime and entitlement abusers.
A 2016 Standford Graduate School of Business analysis shows that low-income housing installed in low-income neighborhoods can boost property values, while low-income housing installed in high-income neighborhoods can decrease property values. Housing availability is the main driver in prices. When there’s limited supply, demand increases, so home prices increase.
Another way property owners exert influence is through Homeowner Associations (HOAs). Many suburban communities have HOAs that allow property owners to control what happens in the neighborhood through voting systems, where property owners have one vote per property owned in the neighborhood. When companies own many properties in one neighborhood, they are able to control the future, for better or worse, of the neighborhood. This program may prove useful in maintaining the look, feel, and value of a neighborhood, but it too comes with risks. Some companies have used their power and control to keep communities segregated or increase the rents so high that they control the demographics to upper-middle income households. You can read examples of HOAs infringing the rights of homeowners at this link.
Renting out properties is a great way to earn passive income through the principle called other people’s money, and is a key principle of becoming wealthy. You use a small amount of money for a down payment and then rent out the property. The rent may earn you a profit and someone else’s money pays the mortgage. The equity you’re building is yours to keep for savings or additional investment.
There’s a lot of vanilla financial advice that I disagree with, and one of them is “renting is throwing your money away.” Like I said in Chapter 8 (http://financialgenomeproject.net/2017/09/24/financial-genome-project-chapter-8/), there are several reasons why renting can make more financial sense than buying a home. One of the reasons we’ve already explained above and that is home owners exposing themselves to liability. When you rent a home, the initial cash outlay you have is the security deposit, usually one month’s rent, and any utilities you may have to turn on or transfer into your name. Assuming you’re a good tenant, you’re likely get the security deposit back when you vacate the property.
Some jobs, like the military, require you to move frequently, and so renting can be a good option. It’s important for the economy to have a healthy amount of renters; too much home ownership can over-commoditize the housing market. This is where homeowners treat properties solely as profit-making investments instead of providing a basic human need for housing. Additionally, a healthy renting market empowers renters and ensures they have equitable rights.
Many financial planners compare effective retirement planning to a 4-legged chair. One of the “legs” of the chair, is to retire with no mortgage and/or have some passive rental income. If you rent too long, and don’t purchase property, that leg of your retirement plan may be missing. If you’re renting and have a longing to invest in the housing market without actually buying a property, you can buy REIT stocks. REITs have done relatively well because of the high-dividend yields they offer.
Below is the updated financial genome. If you’re a homeowner, your rent should cover the mortgage and escrow which goes to your lender, property taxes, which often goes to your lender and are paid on your behalf. Additionally, if there’s profit, it will come to you as income. If you’re a renter, your rent goes to the property owner to be disbursed above.
The key takeaway is owning your own home is an essential part of a sound financial plan, but not always the best decision as determined by your personal financial position. Renting can be a good option if you move frequently, are saving for a down payment, are uncomfortable with the liability, or the market is more favorable for renters.
Or if you prefer use one of our linkware images? Click here
If you are the owner of Financial Genome Project, or someone who enjoys this blog why not upgrade it to a Featured Listing or Permanent Listing?