Property portfolio VS ETF

alocacoc

Junior Member
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
A portfolio of properties Vs a portfolio of stocks & bonds or ETF.

Older generations prefer holding on to commercial,residential properties of larger ratio than to stocks & bonds.
Younger generations are holding on more to ETFs.

Which portfolio will generate more returns with cleverly use of leverage ,assuming both start in today economy with the same capital of 5m ?
 

frenchbriefs

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
45,422
Reaction score
4
Real estate has greater end game potential and far greater scalability and returns thanks to leverage.if u search all the YouTube videos on real estate investing,
US real estate though,not SG,SG is far too expensive and capital intensive.u see alot of examples of people building 30 or 100 properties portfolio and even one attaining 9 figure portfolio.in America property is cheap and there are many creative ways to finance properties,u can even own property for no money down,thru owner lending financing or taking over someone else's mortgage.meaning as long as ur rental covers the mortgage payments u own the home free.

Investing the pros are it requires less capital and effort,but the cons are if ur a retail investor, most like ur gonna achieve average or slightly above average results unless ur Warren buffet or George Soros and have connections to start ur own hedge fund.u are never going to amass a huge fortune unless ur a genius trader or investor or lucky enough to find the next coca cola or apple or Amazon.there are some ultra high networth on bogleheads a US passive investing website 10 to 25 million but I suspect those people either have very high incomes or successful business.
 
Last edited:

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,185
Reaction score
5,360
First of all, you can invest in real estate via an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF). Symbol VNQ, traded on the New York Stock Exchange, is one of several such examples. That's not a recommendation necessarily -- it's just an example.

Second, "stocks" are shares of businesses. Those business often own, manage, and otherwise have business interests correlated with real estate. When you're buying shares of stock, you're typically investing in real estate too, to some degree.

Third, I do not recommend investing in only one sector, whether real estate or any other single sector. Stay diversified, at least to a reasonable degree. It's not real estate or stocks. It's some of both, bearing in mind the second point above.

Real estate has greater end game potential and far greater scalability and returns thanks to leverage.
In terms of long-term real returns, real estate has generally not performed that well. (I'm making that statement simply based on the available historical data, which in some places stretches back over centuries.) However, I absolutely agree that tax advantages, government subsidies, and (to some extent) financing can skew those returns. (Financing not really, not directly. Historically that was true, but nowadays the options and futures markets let you execute some crazy, highly leveraged bets if you want. Some countries' tax systems -- the U.S. personal income tax, to pick an example -- provide mortgage-related tax breaks.) So if there are those tax advantages and/or government subsidies, I think they're well worth exploiting. In Singapore HDB is, at root, a government subsidy, whether you're eligible for a grant or not.

Oddly enough, real estate is rather heavily taxed in Singapore, at least compared to other possible passive income streams in Singapore. That taxation obviously cuts down on returns.
 

frenchbriefs

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
45,422
Reaction score
4
First of all, you can invest in real estate via an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF). Symbol VNQ, traded on the New York Stock Exchange, is one of several such examples. That's not a recommendation necessarily -- it's just an example.

Second, "stocks" are shares of businesses. Those business often own, manage, and otherwise have business interests correlated with real estate. When you're buying shares of stock, you're typically investing in real estate too, to some degree.

Third, I do not recommend investing in only one sector, whether real estate or any other single sector. Stay diversified, at least to a reasonable degree. It's not real estate or stocks. It's some of both, bearing in mind the second point above.


In terms of long-term real returns, real estate has generally not performed that well. (I'm making that statement simply based on the available historical data, which in some places stretches back over centuries.) However, I absolutely agree that tax advantages, government subsidies, and (to some extent) financing can skew those returns. (Financing not really, not directly. Historically that was true, but nowadays the options and futures markets let you execute some crazy, highly leveraged bets if you want. Some countries' tax systems -- the U.S. personal income tax, to pick an example -- provide mortgage-related tax breaks.) So if there are those tax advantages and/or government subsidies, I think they're well worth exploiting. In Singapore HDB is, at root, a government subsidy, whether you're eligible for a grant or not.

Oddly enough, real estate is rather heavily taxed in Singapore, at least compared to other possible passive income streams in Singapore. That taxation obviously cuts down on returns.

I disagree, diversification is for ****ies,for people who want mediocre, average results,for people who have no clue what they are doing,like Warren Buffett said diversification is for idiots.a real estate investor is a different ball game from stock investing,ur focused on one commodity real estate,ur a specialist,real estate is ur ball game,ur in direct control of ur investments, ur real estate is ur business,in stocks or shares ur just a spectator,u barely have any influence,it's like the trickle down effect,by the time the profits trickle down to you,u can barely taste the drops, dividends are a measly 3 or 4 percent,u can only accept what the markets give u.

In real estate investing and business,there are no limits to how fast u can grow ur profits and revenues,there are real estate portfolios and businesses that can scale and grow at a rate of
50 percent,100 percent,even 150 percent or 300 percent a year,yoy,there's a guy in Australia who accumulated 30m in real estate by the time he was 30 thanks to the China boom,he bought his first property when he was in college for
34k.

Go and Google top 40 richest singoes,how many of them billionaires made their fortune from real estate?how many sinkies u know became millionaires from real estate? probably tens of thousands and they did it without expanding a single brain cell.imaginr what u can do with the tools and weapons of ur trade.how many sinkies became millionaires from investing their CPF?

Now I understand where u are coming from,ur speaking from the standpoint of a typical investor,ur investing philosophy,ur objectives are different,
 
Last edited:

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,185
Reaction score
5,360
....like Warren Buffett said diversification is for idiots.
You should not mischaracterize a famous quote, especially Warren Buffett's. He did not use the word "idiots." He said that "diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing."

Most investors are ignorant in the Buffett sense. Moreover, Buffett is now well diversified and has been for quite some time.

Go and Google top 40 richest singoes,how many of them billionaires made their fortune from real estate?
And then go Google the planet's wealthiest individuals. Literally none of the very wealthiest made their fortunes in real estate. Warren Buffett is part of that club.
 

alocacoc

Junior Member
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Thanks for sharing.

Lets keep this to SG context.
In SG, for property portfolio at good time, we got rental yield of 2-3% and yearly appreciation of 2-4%,the limitations are large upfront capital, TDSR, ABSD,SSD, stamp duty, property tax, sell/rental commissions.
For ETF, a good combination of ETFs, will yield around 5-7% yearly in the long run.
Limitations are brokerage commission, fx , management fees.

Assuming both portfolio start today with the same sum and apply the same leverage ratio, am i right to conclude in SG context today, even with clever use of leverage , ETF portfolio wins hand down ?
Therefore, the older generation of wealth building no longer work in today context? Even if you start now when property prices are somewhat low?
Or am i missing any secret technique they use in a property portfolio ?
 

unhinged_loon

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
813
Reaction score
2


"Consistently buy an S&P 500 low-cost index fund," Warren Buffett told CNBC's On The Money in an interview recently. "I think it's the thing that makes the most sense practically all of the time."

And he suggests staying the course, despite market fluctuations. "Keep buying it through thick and thin, and especially through thin," the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway said with a laugh."
 

mummy1234

Banned
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
17,103
Reaction score
31
I have 3 properties which, thanks to leverage, have given me huge paper gains in terms of capital outlay...eg. we only came up with S$500k cash and CPF to own 3 of them but if we sell all 3 now, we can profit S$1.3 mil conservatively. So that is more than 100% returns.

But shares, thankfully not much, still net negative returns...

No ETF experience...
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,590
Reaction score
830
A portfolio of properties Vs a portfolio of stocks & bonds or ETF.

Older generations prefer holding on to commercial,residential properties of larger ratio than to stocks & bonds.
Younger generations are holding on more to ETFs.

Which portfolio will generate more returns with cleverly use of leverage ,assuming both start in today economy with the same capital of 5m ?

I feel like if we knew the answer to this question we'd all be posting from a hammock somewhere in the Caribbean with an icy-cold gin and tonic in one hand.

Anyway, isn't the question poorly specified? Are you talking about stock or bond ETFs? Rezy or commercial or industrial property? What assumptions are we allowed to make about leverage ratios and future returns?
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,185
Reaction score
5,360
In SG, for property portfolio at good time....
Anything does well during a "good time." Toxic Brazilian sludge might be a great investment during a "good time." :)

Therefore, the older generation of wealth building no longer work in today context?
Real estate soared in Singapore from the 1970s through about 1997. That roughly quarter century was terrific for those investors.

Even if you start now when property prices are somewhat low?
They're not particularly low if you look at the charts. The decline that started in 2013 is still pretty modest in size. The Asian Financial Crisis crash in the late 1990s was much, much larger.

How about dollar cost averaging into a well diversified investment portfolio -- and having some owner-occupied housing that you can afford, preferably government subsidized if you qualify, assuming you're going to live in that place for at least a few years? How about some balance in your investment life, just as in your diet (hopefully)?
 

alocacoc

Junior Member
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
I agree this question is not well structured, too many variables.
Good times or bad times, I'm assuming both portfolios start exclusively at the same time. So if you start at a bad times or good times , how are the 2 compared in term of wealth building ?
Portfolio A being a property portfolio
Portfolio B being a balanced portfolio with stocks ,bonds,etf
For simplicity , let's assume year in July 2017 based in Singapore,you are to start either portfolio at a given lump sum. Which will you choose ? Will one method be superior than the other in 20 years time ?
Or you can pick any random date from before,given past data, had one method proved to be better significantly?
You can state any assumption , for example risk adverse investor,however, assumption has to apply to both portfolio, no bias.
 
Last edited:

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,185
Reaction score
5,360
Will one method be superior than the other in 20 years time ?
Yes, it's very unlikely that two different investment portfolios will perform identically, to the dollar, over the course of 20 years.

....Are you asking for an accurate crystal ball that can forecast the future? I don't have one, but I'm still looking. ;) Have you checked whether Lazada or Tangs are selling accurate crystal balls? :)
 

Wood41

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
8,631
Reaction score
2

Wood41

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
8,631
Reaction score
2
NY, San Francisco & many city estates can't be that cheap, no ?

Well in Singapore, a portfolio of a few properties can strike tens of millions of profit.
I think that's better than 10-30 cheap properties in USA that makes 10s of thousands of profits each.

US real estate though,not SG,SG is far too expensive and capital intensive.u see alot of examples of people building 30 or 100 properties portfolio and even one attaining 9 figure portfolio.in America property is cheap and there are many creative ways to finance properties .....
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,185
Reaction score
5,360
First of all, a 5 to 6 percent per annum nominal increase in real estate valuations isn't too exciting. For comparison, the U.S. S&P 500 has experienced a compound real annual growth rate of about 7 percent since its inception nearly a century ago. Your investment choices are always relative to alternatives. If Singapore real estate valuations behave according to this most bullish forecast, and if the U.S. S&P 500 performs at the same rate as its historical average, then you'd be much better off investing in the latter.

IF. There are no guarantees here, either way.

OK, that said, let's look at Morgan Stanley's forecast. Morgan Stanley believes that the supply of new housing units will be lower over the next couple years and that the average household size will decrease, specifically that there will be significant growth in single person households. Morgan Stanley is also estimating 3 percent economic growth over 2016-2030. That's on the high side of consensus forecasts. 1Q2017 GDP growth was 2.5%, for reference. Morgan Stanley notes that resident households already have a home ownership rate of 91%.

So do you believe this forecast and the ingredients that go into it? Do you believe that Singapore's GDP growth will average 3% for the next decade and a half? If you do, how will that happen? I happen to believe that there will be growth in single person households, but will these single persons have the income/wealth to drive up real estate valuations? And what will be the compositional impact? Will they want to buy units that are sized for two or three person households? No, I'd say, but what will they want to buy -- and how much will they be willing to pay?

Of course, Morgan Stanley is in the real estate business to some degree, and "real estate business forecasts booming real estate market" isn't exactly news. But I'm willing to take a look at their bullish forecast to see if it's well justified. I'm not sure it is. The economic growth forecast is very rosy and hard to explain with demographic and productivity trends in Singapore. And without that GDP support, and with a sky high 91% ownership rate already, it's difficult to figure how real estate valuations will gallop ahead at an average 5 to 6 nominal percent per year for the next 15 years or so. And even if you get past all that, for comparison the CPF Retirement Accounts and Medisave Accounts are paying up to 6% nominal interest (first $30K, age 55+), and that's usually completely tax free both inbound and outbound. It's not a particularly impressive rate of nominal valuation growth, relative to alternatives and risks.

N.B. I'm not recommending 0% investment in real estate, and I'm not recommending 100%.

IF you believe Morgan Stanley to some degree, then it seems like the smart move would be to invest a portion of your portfolio in smaller housing units and to avoid, say, landed properties and penthouses -- or indeed anything larger than a one bedroom unit. That is, if you're able to target such investments reasonably well.
 
Last edited:

OngHuatHuat

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
28,381
Reaction score
2,491
500 k includes all loan repayments paid up to date?

I have 3 properties which, thanks to leverage, have given me huge paper gains in terms of capital outlay...eg. we only came up with S$500k cash and CPF to own 3 of them but if we sell all 3 now, we can profit S$1.3 mil conservatively. So that is more than 100% returns.

But shares, thankfully not much, still net negative returns...

No ETF experience...
 

OngHuatHuat

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
28,381
Reaction score
2,491
Property hard to determine maximum earning due to tight control from Sg government.

To be more accurate, it has to be:
Profit = sell price - initial cost(includes stamp duty) - mortgage repayment - outstanding loan + rental received up to date of sale

For my case, if I were to purchase a property in Singapore right now, I have to fork out 5 % absd, so this part of cost needs to take into consideration.
I have left with no choice but to hold on to my current property. :)


No, initial capital outlay only.
 

frenchbriefs

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
45,422
Reaction score
4
NY, San Francisco & many city estates can't be that cheap, no ?

Well in Singapore, a portfolio of a few properties can strike tens of millions of profit.
I think that's better than 10-30 cheap properties in USA that makes 10s of thousands of profits each.

U don't understand....u can fund those cheap properties in USA for nearly nothing,and u can rent each room to a college student assuming it's in a college state arizona or something, college students are the best renters,they need a place to stay for the year and u can get their parents to co-sign,which means if they are late with the rent just give their parents a call and they will be begging and groveling.assuming 3 rooms x $500 each,ur making a nice $1500.assuming the house is worth 100k to 150k and deposit is 20 percent,ur making literally $18k return on a 20 to 30k investment,thats a roi of nearly 60% to 90%!!!!and when the house is paid off in 5 to 6 years,u can use it to leverage and buy even more houses!!!iv read blogs where these americans accumulate 15 properties in less than 4 years!!!all these american investors they own hundreds of properties in their states and theres no one to disturb or compete with them.

america is a huge place,3rd largest country in the world,350 million people,50 states,theres no need to invest in new york or san franc,investing for appreciation is a fools game,real estate u either flip or u invest for rental income.

in america theres a hundred ways to finance properties,sometimes u dont even have to put a single cent down,now that is what i call investing!!!!
 
Last edited:

alocacoc

Junior Member
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
america is a huge place,3rd largest country in the world,350 million people,50 states,theres no need to invest in new york or san franc,investing for appreciation is a fools game,real estate u either flip or u invest for rental income.

Flipping is betting on appreciation too right ?
Applying what you said to SG context, investing for rental income VS dividend ETF/stocks/bonds/Funds or any combination, which is more applicable ? Seem to me that dividends can achieve 4% or more easily which is better than rental yield. Applying the same leverage for property to the dividend portfolio will still come out higher yield than property. Right ?

BBC,
No, im not shopping for a crystal ball. Im just trying to weigh the difference of the 2 portfolio strategy. I should ask this way , is index investing better than property investing in the last 10 to 20 years ?
Without dividends, over the ten years ending Feb 2014 the SPDR® STI ETF gained 63.9% in Net Asset Value. Including dividends, the 10 year return came to 123.56%
She bought her first condominium unit for rent in 2002. In the next 4½ years, she built up a portfolio of five private properties. By 2008, its total value had more than doubled. In 2010 and 2011, she sold four of the properties, realising a net profit of 80 to 120 percent.
Source: property soul

Personally, i prefer the index investment portfolio. But dont understand why do some of the rich i heard of ,still building up their property portfolio even after owning 9 properties.

Has the increase in number of ETFs available from the past few years provide a better alternative to replace the older generation ideas of property portfolio ?

Just hope to seek some views from you guys here, maybe which portfolio you personally prefer and why? In the case if you find these 2 portfolios are not apple to apple comparison, then how does 1 has an exclusive advantage over the other ?

NOTE: I understand the past performance is not an indicator of future.
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts. Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
Top