I interviewed Bruce Norris from @thenorrisgroup who I’ve been following for 15 years and is one of the best in understanding real estate trends and prices in California and Florida.
Here’s why Bruce doesn’t think a real estate crash is coming any time soon.
First, lenders have generally been much more conservative in lending compared to the type of lending that led to the 2008-2011 housing crash. This means less likelihood of default.
Second, interest rates are at historic lows and are attracting new buyers wanting to lock in a fixed housing expense for 30 years.
Third, COVID only increased demand for houses as many wanted a house w/backyard (over an apartment) to work-from-home.
Fourth, gov't trying to prevent foreclosures w/ forbearance, and typically foreclosures need to reach about 40% of total sales in a market to impact comps heavily (ie., a crash). But 40% rate is hard to reach when homeowners have equity and lending requirements have been strict.
Fifth, the affordability index (ie., in California) still has a ways to go to to reach peak lows. Generally, the cycle top is reached in California when affordability index hits a low of 17%, but we’re at 28% or so.
Sixth, places like Texas and Florida are experiencing huge migration tailwinds and demand for housing is very high.
Overall, if you’d like to learn more about the reasonings shared above, here’s my full interview with Bruce Norris. It took me over 6 months to get this interview and excited to share it.
Each market is different so many of these observations are generalized and might not pertain to certain markets. In other words, each real estate market has its own unique characteristics that impact market conditions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Technology is enabling winner-takes-most markets in an unprecedented manner.
Here’s a thread on how to take advantage of this as an investor.
Technology and the Internet has created network effects. Add a person to the network and the value of the entire network grows, meaning the network becomes more valuable to every person on the network.
Network effects tend to be bi-directional.
For each new seller on Ebay, value is added to buyers (meaning more selection, lower prices, etc).
And for each new buyer on Ebay, value is added to sellers (meaning larger buyer base, more demand and volume).
In ~5 years, Elon steps down as Tesla CEO, remains as Chief Product Officer
In ~10 years, leaves Tesla completely to focus on SpaceX and Neuralink. Starts selling his TSLA stock.
This is fairly obvious to me.
However if a holding company is formed, Elon will oversee Tesla, SpaceX (and dozens of other ventures tbd) until the day he dies or loses the cognitive function to run it. Could be another 40 years. Makes a big difference.
Personally, I think @elonmusk is the best investor of capital and innovator at scale in our generation, and that might be an understatement.
This is an opportunity to create a structure that would optimize his time and interests the most.
This can be a tremendous advantage for the individual investor who knows how and spends the time to dive deeply into a company.
If you know how to dive deeply into companies + you have the time/motivation to do so + you are super picky with your investments = you've got a true edge in investing.
In investing there's a certain level of competition with other investors because of the scarcity of truly great investments.
The dual (preservation + growth) focus adopted by mainstream investing diverts attention to a large basket of various companies.
My first TSLA stock purchase made in August 2012 is now 100x ($5.94/share to $599.04).
Here's a thread.
At $637/share all my TSLA stock purchases in 2012-2013 will be 100x.
I'm more in humble awe & wonder than I am excited or exuberant. I was never taught the power of a 100x investment, but to have discovered it... it makes me question even more traditional and conventional thinking.