My friend’s home in Palo Alto tripled in value in 10 years!

[Anonymous]

That's a 12% y/y rate of return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They bought it for $1.5m in 2010 and recently sold it for $4.5m. Any areas in DC that have seen that much growth in already-expensive homes?

Impressive and the house must be crappy. 10 years ago, 1.5m wouldn't have be enough for a nice decent house in Palo Alto.

I don't know about that. Here's a house that sold for $1.8M in 2008 and is on the market for $4.5M. It's in San Marino, not a crappy neighborhood.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Marino/1230-Winston-Ave-91108/home/7014927

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They bought it for $1.5m in 2010 and recently sold it for $4.5m. Any areas in DC that have seen that much growth in already-expensive homes?

Impressive and the house must be crappy. 10 years ago, 1.5m wouldn't have be enough for a nice decent house in Palo Alto.

I don't know about that. Here's a house that sold for $1.8M in 2008 and is on the market for $4.5M. It's in San Marino, not a crappy neighborhood.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Marino/1230-Winston-Ave-91108/home/7014927

My bad, I read Palo Alto as Pasadena! For Palo Alto it's a different story.

[Anonymous]

Damn. And Palo Alto really isn't that impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's a 12% y/y rate of return.

The stock market more than tripled in value in the last 10 years -- the sustained rise that started under Obama (once the financial crisis was over) and continued until today interrupted only by COVID.

S&P was 1,200 in 2011, and is around 4,000 today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My home in Bloomingdale DC tripled in 10 years. Sold a few months ago.

Yeah but it’s like your 400k home became 1.2 mil or similar. Not nearly as great as a 1.5 becoming 4.5 mil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a 12% y/y rate of return.

The stock market more than tripled in value in the last 10 years -- the sustained rise that started under Obama (once the financial crisis was over) and continued until today interrupted only by COVID.

S&P was 1,200 in 2011, and is around 4,000 today.

Yes but you need a house to live in... and most people have a mortgage on their house. So it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a 12% y/y rate of return.

The stock market more than tripled in value in the last 10 years -- the sustained rise that started under Obama (once the financial crisis was over) and continued until today interrupted only by COVID.

S&P was 1,200 in 2011, and is around 4,000 today.

Yes but you need a house to live in... and most people have a mortgage on their house. So it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

Mortgages allow people to leverage their bets on real estate, that's all. In most markets you could rent a house more cheaply (or this should be the case if the US didn't subsidize home ownership); you choose to pay a mortgage and that means you're making a real estate investment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My home in Bloomingdale DC tripled in 10 years. Sold a few months ago.

Yeah but it’s like your 400k home became 1.2 mil or similar. Not nearly as great as a 1.5 becoming 4.5 mil.

It is if your family take home is 165k a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a 12% y/y rate of return.

The stock market more than tripled in value in the last 10 years -- the sustained rise that started under Obama (once the financial crisis was over) and continued until today interrupted only by COVID.

S&P was 1,200 in 2011, and is around 4,000 today.

Yes but you need a house to live in... and most people have a mortgage on their house. So it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

Mortgages allow people to leverage their bets on real estate, that's all. In most markets you could rent a house more cheaply (or this should be the case if the US didn't subsidize home ownership); you choose to pay a mortgage and that means you're making a real estate investment.

Yes, most people think of their houses as an investment but it’s the only investment that provides a needed roof over your headed.

[Anonymous]

We bought for $320 in 2011 and listing for $675 next month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They bought it for $1.5m in 2010 and recently sold it for $4.5m. Any areas in DC that have seen that much growth in already-expensive homes?

Impressive and the house must be crappy. 10 years ago, 1.5m wouldn't have be enough for a nice decent house in Palo Alto.

Nice try, jealous. Not at all crappy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a 12% y/y rate of return.

The stock market more than tripled in value in the last 10 years -- the sustained rise that started under Obama (once the financial crisis was over) and continued until today interrupted only by COVID.

S&P was 1,200 in 2011, and is around 4,000 today.

Ok let's assume you are right.
What you don't understand is that real estate is a leveraged investment.
Buy a $1.5m house, put 20% down ($300k). House triples in 10 years ($4.5m). Your profit is $3m. You have 10x your investment. That's called leverage.
The same $300k invested in the S&P would have given you a 3.5x return on your investment at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pimmit Hills. $1m for a new build 3 years ago. Now $1.6m for a new build. Could easily be at $2m in 2 years. So that's a doubling in 5 years time.

Hahaha no,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pimmit Hills. $1m for a new build 3 years ago. Now $1.6m for a new build. Could easily be at $2m in 2 years. So that's a doubling in 5 years time.

Hahaha no,

Hahaha, it stings doesn't it Fact is that something that was 1m three years ago is now selling for $1.5-1.6m. That's a growth rate of 15% per year which is even higher than Palo Alto.