Thursday, May 8, 2008

Second Base


Realizing that improved real estate is a depreciable asset (have you ever filled out Form 1040, Schedule E?), an honest investor who truly wishes to get a return on an investment in rental real estate should first get a handle on the meaning of capitalization. In case you were wondering, that has a good deal to do with the term capitalism, which is a dirty word to some people who think that failing to properly capitalize a venture is a virtue.

Capitalization refers to the ability to reasonably compare the costs of an asset to the benefits that derive from owning it. Accountants are familiar with the concept, but most amateur real estate investors, sad to say, are not. Even Jesus warned about the dangers of failing to capitalize ventures. I won't tell you where He said that; you have to look it up for yourself, but it is there and He was very clear about it.

An investor who has no start-up capital is on shaky ground. I know, having started several businesses on shoestrings and losing my shirt because I was undercapitalized. Therefore, we will give our hypothetical investor the tidy sum of $10,000, and see what he could (maybe should) do with it.

There is a basic formula for calculating the income produced by an investment : Income = Rate * Value. If we consider putting the $10,000 in the bank at 0.2% interest (which is about what some banks are paying right now on savings accounts and CDs), then the annual income (simple interest) on $10,000 would be R * V = 0.002 * 10,000 = $20. That is not much of an incentive for saving. It is one of the reasons why intervention by the Federal Reserve, lowering interest rates to stimulate the economy, will ultimately have disastrous effects. The only people who will win that one are the bankers, who get to use every one else's capital virtually for free.

Our investor could put the money into the stock market. There are many solid mutual funds that have been paying 8%-12% per year. What is important to look at, though, is the mix of the annual return from those funds. How much is due to dividends paid by the companies that the fund invested in, and how much is due to capital gains that the fund earned through stock speculation? If the latter has been a very high percentage of the annual gain, the new market economics may soon make that fund much less appealing than one which derives a higher percentage of its gains through dividends paid on annual production.

In the end, all solid gains come from the production of goods and services. Rental real estate is a service which produces places in which people can live. The rates of gain from those things are regularly published. For real estate investors, the Appraisal Institute publishes the Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey© National Market Indicators, which is a gold mine of data on current capitalization rates for various types of real estate.

An example would be the Overall Cap Rate for Apartments for the 4th quarter of 2007 (3.5%-8%, with a mean rate of 5.75%), or the Residual Cap Rate for Apartments for the 4th quarter of 2007 (4.5%-8.5%, with a mean rate of 6.58%). These are rates obtained by surveys of market participants; they are the rates that are being reported by serious investors in this field. They are also bellweathers for the economy in general, since any inflation rate (driven by artificially low interest rates) that exceeds the mean cap rates for a class of investment makes it economically foolish to hold that investment class.

Our investor also must study the care and feeding of his investment. We will assume he wants to buy a house and rent it out to generate income. He would like to have the largest gains possible, but he is a young sprout of 35 years, and would like to make an investment that he can still be drawing income from 30 years from now, when he retires. For this reason he prudently seeks a rate of return that appears supported by professional investors in his investment class.

Our investor will buy a house. Out of the gross rent, he will pay a mortgage, taxes, insurance, and anything that is needed in the way of maintenance. When he is ready to pass on, he will have not only earned an income over a lifetime, but will also have built an equity position. That equity position, however, should be considered a windfall bonus if it turns out to be a gain that beats the inflation rate, because in order to maintain the property, he will have to make further capital improvements over the life of the investment lest it depreciate through negligence to the point where it would be worth less than the original purchase price and also possibly lose its income generation potential.

Our investor will start with $10,000, and hope to match the Overall Cap Rate for Apartments (about 6%, or $600 in annual net gain). For the sake of simplicity, we will stick with the short term implications, fully realizing that as his equity position increases, the theoretical yield should also rise. The fact that the monthly payments on the loan will remain constant (we will assume he goes the full 30 years without refinancing) make a short-term analysis more realistic.

Next time we will help our investor choose his investment property.

3 comments:

  1. My ING Direct Bank Acct (online) is currently paying 3% APR (15 TIMES the 0.2% amt you assumed), with no minimum balance requirement, fully FDIC insured. Why so many people still insist on sticking their money in bricks and mortar bank accounts that pay less than 1% and charge fees if you sneeze in the wrong direction is beyond me.

    Also, your "investor" shouldn't be putting his investment into a rental property that will "hopefully" net him 6% per year (along with many a tenant-induced headache) unless he has already paid off his primary mortgage (a SURE 6% gain on his investment).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you avoid putting money in your 401K because your home mortgage isn't paid off? Stick with this. The 6% is a net return figure. We aren't done with the analysis yet, and when we are done, the effects of an oversupply in housing and the failure to properly account for expenses, coupled with the dangers inherent in increasing the money supply, will be addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, not too long ago I reduced the amount going into my 401k to only the amount that my employer matches (an immediate 50% return on investment that can't be beat anywhere), and we are sending the amount we are no longer socking into the 401k into the mortgage. I realize all the "experts" would tell me I am not fully looking at the tax implications of saving in a pre-tax account like a 401k (I know, I used to WORK for a 401k provider), and that my money should average out to more than a 6% gain in the mutual funds in my 401k over the long haul. But ownership of my primary residence (ie, no pesky house payment) has been one of my top financial goals for a long time. The peace of mind it would bring is worth something to me, and it follows some general financial principles regarding living debt-free that I hold. (a la Ron Blue, Dave Ramsey, and Larry Burkett).

    ReplyDelete