Property Investment – A Store-of-Value or Capital Gain?
Sigh … I have lost a shit load of text … Rewriting from memory is always tough. It’s a long read, hope you peeps can be patient.
Owner-Occupied Property
There is no debate on owner-occupied property; the bank and the developer would punish this group the worst, with
maximum developer’s curse. The owner has to pay for all rates, outgoings, interests and inconveniences due in
very poor amenities, until the new township is
fully established.
The owner has to “get it back” through other things, such as living on firm land, keeping big huskies, serama ayams, miniature ducks, endangered tortoises or pygmy marmosets, drink non-shit water, anyhow park car, anyhow travel, anyhow play crackers and fire-works, eat 2-foot red groupers whole, eat running chickens, eat 1-kg frogs, eat 忘不了or hehehe … (pangolin? This one I haven’t tried yet) anything that moves. All these are done, without breaking one’s wallet.
Warren Buffet
Have you ever wondered why the greatest and very successful investor alive,
Warren Buffet, doesn’t even bother to invest in real estate in the US and yet the richest Asian businessmen are all successful heavy property tycoons?
A very difficult question to answer, I shall try my best.
Preamble
- USA
For the longest of time, going back for about 100 years or any few hundred years before, the property prices didn’t move a dime, apart from inflation (fiat money was only introduced in 1971). Therefore, if an investor was to invest in a property 100 years ago and if he were to liquidate it now, the property is priced exactly at its inflated price, not a dime more, i.e., it is just a perfect store-of-value.
One can easily understand this: If one were to find the city too packed or expensive, the new buyer would have to consider the cheaper and bigger suburbs. Once the suburbs have grown into city-like, the newer buyers would have to consider further outlying estate. This however is not a problem, a 5-minute additional drive on the freeway in any direction, would have yielded millions of hectares for new development. This expansive land mass would definitely limit the property price growth to only that of inflation-hedge.
Therefore, Warren Buffet living on such land would not have bothered to invest in such a boring investment instrument. Instead, he found early pleasure in insurance.
- Insurance – A More Exciting Game
For insurance, it is based on cumulative power. The insurance company is involved in organizing this cumulative power and in the process reaps great benefit.
For example, say, there are 10,000 cars on the road. On the average, say, the insurance claims amount to about $1m per month (which is a lot of money). Based on pure cost and effect, each car owner would only need to pay $100 per month ($1m / 10,000) to drive on the road. This is in fact the current going insurance rate in USA and Canada and the insurance company organizing this was even able to turn a profit as well. Imagine how much you have been paying sick cunts for the privilege to drive on the road?
Most insurance companies are quite sick in their profit making, i.e., at least 80% on premium covers. That’s the reason why Warren Buffet is able to generate billions of insurance profits for doing almost nothing (only needed to pay out 20% of their cover collection) (Remember! The insurance company was trying to con you of your hard-earned money by claiming bonus generation from unused part of the premium! But when the time comes, they claim otherwise, assholes!).
I will cite an easier example: The 4D betting. The first, second and third prizes are $3,500, $2,000 and $1,000, giving a total pay-out of $6,500 for each $1 bet. In 4D betting, 10,000 numbers from 0000 to 9999 can be bet. Assuming all 10,000 numbers were bet ($10,000), the total prize pay-out would be drawn ($6,500), giving a 35% profit to the house ($10,000 - $6,500 = $3,500). Insurance companies are worse; they easily curb their pay-out to less than 20% (giving 80% profit), thus making insurance companies one of the most profitable companies in the world. On top of that, they even have a battery of lawyers to help them not pay more than necessary.
- Asia – Massive Populace
On the other hand, Asia is full of people, but land scarce. It is people after people. It is people everywhere. With people, comes demand for housing and food. Many of these assets are chased out of sync from its actual economic growth. Just look at Tokyo, Hong Kong and Bangalore, their property prices are out of this world. It simply can’t be sustained. When this happens, property can no longer be a good investment tool, but a mere store-of-value.
Japan is going nowhere with her lost decades. So shall the cute little island in the south.
One must have heard of super tycoons moving their investments elsewhere out of Asia, but, the Chinese was angry and decided to shut these super tycoons off their rightful gains. In the meantime, those investments that managed to be placed outside of Asia were also suffering from asset stagnation. Those new placements were not behaving what it should have been. Property investment once wrongly played is nothing more than an inflation-hedge, i.e., of no significant investment value.
To grow a super pie is never easy.
- The Developer’s Finest
Since the developer holds all the keys to super lucrative investment gains, shouldn’t all developers just build their properties for renting only? In fact, none of the developers I knew build to operate. Without the buyers paying for the developer’s curse, these developers are just as clueless as the next guy on property investment. These con-men, oops I meant developers, are just merely spinning and selling a fairy tale.
With this back drop, Asia is
stuck with investment in real estate investment. In the eyes of its people, it must be the
single most lucrative asset class. But, because the government, banks and developers are super aware of such lucrative returns, they will always choose to
suppress its lucrative returns, by exacting very expensive starting-up costs. The
developer’s curse is the most obvious stick.
Fiat Money
Fiat money is currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but it is not backed by a physical commodity. The value of fiat money is derived from the relationship between supply and demand rather than the value of the material that the money is made of.
Every government has her own fan boys. Fan boys are never cheap to maintain. They exact high payments every year. So in order to maintain power to the family, they have to print more fiat money to pay these fan boys. The end result is more fiat money are now chasing the same amount of assets,
inflation becomes a natural thing.
The reason why I mentioned
fiat money is because it is now almost
impossible to value the property in question whether it is over-priced or under-value; whether the market has come down significantly enough so that it is time to jump in for a play.
Nobody in the market would ever share their true-inflation-adjusted charts for our investment decision-making.
The Cunning Buyer
For every buyer and seller of the property, both would like to think that they have come off the winner. But, that’s no possible. To me, the only winner in the market is the
cunning buyer, meaning the one with cash.
The explanation is simple. It is always true that after selling, the seller can never get back the same property type and size in the neighbourhood.
But, this doesn’t seem to be the case for the
primary market. For the
primary market, the developers will do all kinds of bells and whistles to attract the buyers. Once the buyers get hooked, it is a long term pay-off time as witnessed by my own failed investments, my friends’ failed investments and some of the peeps’ here. So better stick to the
secondary resale market, if one were to survive in this game.
I know of many peeps out there must die-die buy something
new. It is everyone's own choice. As for me, I just change (renovate) as much things I can afford lor. New or old,
the land is always good.
Property as a store-of-value
As long as there is no gearing (
i.e., borrowing from the bank), the property behaves exactly like a good
store-of-value. It is
only with gearing that the property provides some form of investment returns.
Property as an Investment
Now comes the real thing ... How can one profit, apart from being a
store-of-value, from property investment?
Every year, the property, selling at say
$1,000, without considering external factors, would go up by about 3-5%. Let’s take it as
5% for simpler numbers. This is usually due to the printing of fiat money by the government to pay their choir boys,
i.e., inflation-inducing.
For most properties, the property seller would hawk his ware at
3% investment return,
i.e., the new owner can rent the property out at
$30 a year or
$2.5 a month.
The new owner would buy it and after about
14 years, the property should be worth
$2,000 or 2 times (
5% compounded growth per year). Do note that the new owner after
14 years is no better off than when he first purchased it. Why? The answer is if he ever sells it then, he would never be able to buy back the same space at the same location at his selling price then. The buyer as we know it is not stupid, there must be a rainbow waiting for him at the end of the tunnel. All the seller gets is just a pile of useless
fiat money.
In the meantime, the new owner may choose the most stupid option:
staying in it himself. This is the choice the bank loves you to believe:
owner-occupation. This is the
least risk to the bank, which then implies the
worst risk for the new owner. Factoring in costs like property tax and maintenance, the interest++ payable may be as high as
5% compounding per year,
i.e., in the end, the new owner must fork out
2 times the property money to the bank.
If he chooses to sell on the
14th year again, the new owner is just merely getting back his instalment and interest payments to the bank. What a con job !!!
Therefore, any property investment must be done wisely. Otherwise, the property at best is a mere piggy bank for savings for old age. This is
not investing, but pure saving.
Investing has real returns, while saving is just a store-of-value.
Hence, to put it straight, if one were to buy any property for investment, he must
not stay in it. The bank is again correct in this instance, the second or non-occupier property is called an
investment property. You need to let the tenant pay for the interest due and payable. But, if the rental is
only at
3% net, while the loan is at
5% gross, good luck to the new property owner.
There is never a straight answer to all things.
Property investment is one of those things that we can’t simply work out the numbers in isolation.
Gearing
The
only way to
defeat the fiat money generation is to
have gearing.
Gearing is important but
over-gearing hurts bad. I used to have gearing of 70%, paid up 30%, but financial crisis likes to
retrace more than 50%. Therefore, 30% payment is
not good enough. I would recommend
40% payment, but if that is not possible for the first property, payment of
at least 30% is recommended.
Anything less is always risk-laden.
Do not however stay in the property in play, let the tenant and the market pay. Your
only effort is to administer the rental.
Once the gearing
ends (
i.e., the bank loan is fully repaid), your investment quality
ends too, and the gains of the property is
reverted back to only pure store-of-value gains.
So stay geared somehow.
Rent Seeking
Contrary to most bullshit that landed properties are hard to rent. Please ask those ass-holes to fuck off. Only condos are hard to rent, over and above that rental, one still needs to pay maintenance fee, insurance, quit rent and property tax. The end result: there is hardly
any money left for instalment and interest payment (condo maintenance fee or gated charges are some of the worst con jobs by developers).
If one owns a landed property, not those gated and guarded ones (the locals don’t really care about that kind of things, except for owner-occupation), every 2 to 3 days, you will have a motorcyclist (all races) coming to the door step and asking for rent.
Renting is very much a local phenomenon.
Of course, some would argue that
rental seeking is a
tough cookie. Who said making any real money is easy anyway? The tenants might just don’t pay up. Well, the trick is one should
not try to rent so high (remember the investment is at least
10 years long). As long as the rental is
not too high,
the tenants fear eviction. They can’t get an alternative cheaper or cheap version to rent. On top of that,
rental is very much a way-of-life for the locals. They don’t usually buy.
Getting the tenant to pay on time is only a matter of practice. You will get it in no time.
Up to semi-ds, renting is bliss. Bungalows I am not so sure simply because I don’t ever own one. But, if I get a chance, I don’t think bungalow renting is that hard to settle too.
Prediction of Financial Crisis
This is the same as asking
when is a good time to buy? I really don’t know. The government is also our enemy, we can’t predict when they will “save” the market or let the market “dies”.
The safest thing to do is to check one’s cash flow. If the cash-flow is comfortable for the next 10 years, by all means plunge right in. otherwise, it is just a pure gamble.
Anything sold within 10 years are as good as zeros, because one didn’t allow time to heal any monetary mistake that one might have made during the zealous buying phase.
No Free Lunch
Investing in property is
not free of effort …
The
smarter cookies are usually those who buy old dilapidated properties and do them up for
rentals.
The
smartest cookies are those who buy old dilapidated properties and do them up to
operate.
There is simply no free lunch. A simple buy-and-sell decision is not investing, it’s
gambling.
The Game Ends
The investment game ends when the property is fully paid up. It will revert back to its store-of-value role. Without gearing, one is hard-pressed as how to
overcome the inflationary pressure caused by the fiat money printing.
I don’t have any immediate solution. But, to continue borrowing from the bank
carries investment risk. I guess there is little harm in borrowing
50% or less, but then I was once-upon-a-time hit by the financial crisis that retraced
more than 50%. I really don’t quite know. I guess going forth to the temple helps. More than investment cunningness, we need
luck too.
Selling Out
As the saying goes, there is only cunning buyer and no cunning seller. Unless the use of the cashing-out has a higher priority, such as illnesses, education or pushing-start the kids, selling-out is
never a good decision. For that, I recommend
switching,
i.e., to sell off the freehold land and repurchase back another freehold land that is bigger than the current one and re-borrow from the bank. The reduced net proceeds can then be used for whatever the higher purpose. This needs planning well ahead of the crisis selling.
Patience
One is always rewarded for being patience. Never assume that one has missed the boat by
not buying into the property. There are a million others to choose from.
Always do thorough research before plunging in, regardless of urgency or nearness to one’s parents.
Once a friend missed a
3.7ksf corner terrace for only
rm180k, I thought that is it. But, after
5 more years of fervent searching, he managed to get another
3.4ksf semi-d for
rm220k in a
far superior location. Semi-ds always sell better than corner terraces. Overall, the market has moved almost
double during that same
5 years, but the market rewards the patient buyer. In the short
2 years after, nothing was sold for less than
rm500k in that area.
The Alternative
In the Asian context, there is really none.
If political conditions allow, property investment remained one of the safest investments one can hope to retain.
I hope you guys enjoy the read …
in metta …