I am not an expert, but this analsis looks shaky: here, real estate (housing stock) is considered as something that does not decay over time, does not require maintenance (like gold, bitcoin). This might be correct for land, but certainly not buildings. What am I missing ?
You're right - housing does decay and needs upkeep, unlike gold or BTC. That’s a fair point.
However, what makes real estate distinct is that it generates yield, which is a significant advantage over BTC and Gold (to be fair, a notable disadvantage being that it requires active management).
It’s not just sitting there. It kicks off income, has tax advantages, and often appreciates over time - especially in supply-constrained markets.
So yes, buildings wear out. However, they also compensate you while they work.
That productive element offsets the decay - and in many cases, outpaces it.
Appreciate the thoughtful pushback - it’s a real distinction worth highlighting.
This is one of the most compelling cross-asset frameworks I’ve seen in a while,especially as someone who actively invests in both crypto and real estate.
Your application of stock-to-flow (STF) to regional housing markets really nails something I’ve been sensing on the ground: illiquidity isn’t a bug, it’s the feature. And in structurally constrained metros like SF or Manhattan, you’re not just buying square footage,you’re buying permanent scarcity.
I ran a parallel STF calc for Orange County, CA (where I’ve been investing in infill assets). Over the past decade, the new housing supply has hovered at ~0.5% of stock annually. That gives an STF ratio of ~200, putting it in the same league as post-halving BTC.
But here’s the wrinkle: unlike Bitcoin, housing can’t be fractionally transacted or rapidly rebalanced,which is why leveraged entries or mispriced buys destroy the STF advantage. It’s scarcity with execution risk.
Final thought: would love to see how industrial-zoned land in coastal cities scores under STF. Because in my experience, logistics real estate is the real dark horse of durable scarcity.
I am not an expert, but this analsis looks shaky: here, real estate (housing stock) is considered as something that does not decay over time, does not require maintenance (like gold, bitcoin). This might be correct for land, but certainly not buildings. What am I missing ?
You're right - housing does decay and needs upkeep, unlike gold or BTC. That’s a fair point.
However, what makes real estate distinct is that it generates yield, which is a significant advantage over BTC and Gold (to be fair, a notable disadvantage being that it requires active management).
It’s not just sitting there. It kicks off income, has tax advantages, and often appreciates over time - especially in supply-constrained markets.
So yes, buildings wear out. However, they also compensate you while they work.
That productive element offsets the decay - and in many cases, outpaces it.
Appreciate the thoughtful pushback - it’s a real distinction worth highlighting.
This is one of the most compelling cross-asset frameworks I’ve seen in a while,especially as someone who actively invests in both crypto and real estate.
Your application of stock-to-flow (STF) to regional housing markets really nails something I’ve been sensing on the ground: illiquidity isn’t a bug, it’s the feature. And in structurally constrained metros like SF or Manhattan, you’re not just buying square footage,you’re buying permanent scarcity.
I ran a parallel STF calc for Orange County, CA (where I’ve been investing in infill assets). Over the past decade, the new housing supply has hovered at ~0.5% of stock annually. That gives an STF ratio of ~200, putting it in the same league as post-halving BTC.
But here’s the wrinkle: unlike Bitcoin, housing can’t be fractionally transacted or rapidly rebalanced,which is why leveraged entries or mispriced buys destroy the STF advantage. It’s scarcity with execution risk.
Final thought: would love to see how industrial-zoned land in coastal cities scores under STF. Because in my experience, logistics real estate is the real dark horse of durable scarcity.
Thank you! Great furtherance of the analysis!
Therefore, opportunities always belong to those who have clear cognition.
I've never heard of the ratio but it makes sense. And to be honest, 200+ for the S&P 500 is mind-blowing.