How to play a multi-year real estate bull market

[dac8555]

Quote from Banjo:

There is a burgeoning ex-pat gringo communiity in Panama. Sort of the new Costa Rica.

I live in CR. we have the largest % expat population in the world. It has "bubbled" here just like many other places. i know of places that are 500% more than 5-10 years ago. there are also very significant disadvantages when you go over seas...

1. No tax advantages- cant write anything off
2. No GOOD financing structures (here in cr). expats cant get a loan without residency...takes a while to get residency.
3. High interest rate (10% floating rate) if you do get a loan(here in cr...)
4. screwy laws......
5. costs 1/2 as much to rent as it does to buy.

the list goes on and on.

I think there is singnificant additional risk when you go overseas, just like buying foreign stocks from a foreign exchanage. it CAn work, but many more people lose their shirts withlittle means of renumeration.

 

[Smart Money]

Quote from Kicking:

When RE tops out in the US, it will be over everywhere IMO for quite a while. I don't think looking for foreign markets to appreciate and "catch up" is a good idea.
This seems to me like a simplistic assumption. RE has gone up because of the Fed irresponsible policy, that forced other central banks to adopt the same policies. When the accommodative environment is gone in the US, there is no reason to expect it will remain elsewhere.

Anyway I believe one should have some RE in their portfolio, your own residence, a second one and one or two rental properties if you can. But speculating in residential RE or renting as a business with the aim of maximizing returns by raising rents is morally WRONG. Some of you talking about raising rent every year to maximize returns should be ashamed of themselves, greedy m*f*ckers. Rents shoudl not be raised much more than inflation. How can you look at yourself in the mirror and be proud of yourself when you make your money by squeezing the working class.

I'm thinking your post is a troll, but you really can't raise your rents much faster than inflation. If you did, you'd soon have no tenants. Further, smart landlords know that it is wise to raise rents slowly, or not raise them at all, for good tenants who pay their bills on time and don't create problems. If your experience was different, you can probably guess why that is...

One last thing...if there weren't landlords, and the government didn't create nice tax incentives to be landlords, housing would be very, very, expensive. We compete each other by trying to provide the best place at the best price. If you don't do that, you're not a landlord very long.

SM

 

[Smart Money]

Quote from prt_systems:

well, I know it sounds heartless to raise rents but the whole rental equation is based on the ability to increase rents to keep a steady profit or increase your profits....

And, I'm not sure you are really squeezing anyone .... if you raise rents too much people will move, or in the environment we had recently , simply buy. Nobody has the goal to be a renter forever. Eventually most people get some type of home here in the US. .....

I know that in the areas where where I have lived or worked over the last five years rents actually decreased and basically stayed flat .. only now are they just starting to rise (over the last year).

Amen to that. It was hard to be a landlord with flat rents, increasing taxes, and amazing prices paid for our inventory of housing. I suspect that for these reasons, there is going to be a real shortage of rental property available and rents will ratchet up suprisingly fast. It will probably be in the news a lot in about a year or so.

SM

 

[Trader5287]

Here's one for you. It's from a sky is falling site:

"His piece de resistance was a story in the LA Times set to run the next morning he quoted from. The story chronicled the 6-year real estate boom in California, pointing out that 49,000 homes in 2005 sold for one million dollars or more, a 47 percent increase from 2004 when just over 33,000 California dwellings changed hands for that amount. Going back to 2002 just under 14,000 homes sold for one million or more. So to put it another way, the 49,000 homes sold in 2005 at one million or more represents a nearly fourfold increase over 2002. According to the article, nationwide in 2005 one million homes were listed at this price, up from just 350,000 in 2000."

Only 49,000 >1M homes sold in 05? In California? That isn't evidence to me of a crash coming - that's not enough high end supply. There's something like 800,000 realtors alone out there. Just 10% doing well and moving would take every stick of supply, no? And an enormous coastline.

Is it something I don't get about condos or population/housing density? Help an east coast slowhead out here - what am I missing?

Geo.





The meaningless article I took it from. I assume the LA Times stats were accurate

http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=4545&pv=1