Why is Milwaukee, Wisconsin one of the hottest markets in the US in 2023?

[Marcus Auerbach]

Great breakdown from Dave Meyer talking about what happened in 2023 and what to expect in 2024. Take a look at this map showing home price appreciation in 2023: even for me, it is shocking how Wisconsin stands out, almost solitary with NE. I have my theories and if you follow me on YouTube you know my take on it why this is happening, but I'd like to get my logic checked and hear some other people chime in: why do you think this is happening?

Here is the link to Dave's analysis: 

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood..

 one thing that I do notice from bay area (highest land value) and OOS property (lowest land value area) is that, home actually has more intrinsic value when located out of state, same house like that in our market is having 15 times the price, which means we only buying the land while the house itself is in much worse condition than comparable OOS property.

So if someone like me that's more liberal and can accept to live in any neighborhood, I could really have a good primary house to live in out of state, for a very low price point. 

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

[V.G Jason]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood..

 one thing that I do notice from bay area (highest land value) and OOS property (lowest land value area) is that, home actually has more intrinsic value when located out of state, same house like that in our market is having 15 times the price, which means we only buying the land while the house itself is in much worse condition than comparable OOS property.

So if someone like me that's more liberal and can accept to live in any neighborhood, I could really have a good primary house to live in out of state, for a very low price point. 

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

 $300 per square foot is rich. It's likely if you have an old(er) house and had fire, it's better to just sell the land than rebuild. This is why location is so important, besides it receiving the lion share of the benefit of pricing volatility and shunning most of the fall from it.  This will create now even higher pricing locally and extremely nearby. The insurance aspect is another way they will get mom & pop out, just can't keep up.

[Marcus Auerbach]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

[V.G Jason]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

$250/sq ft is rich. Should be sub $170 closer to $150-$160. In areas like this, you want to buy starter homes in the suburbs that are high 200s, low 300s that need a little help. Once you get closer to the median house price it's no longer worth the speculation aspect of it, like you mentioned. 

In those cases, almost always better to bet on the Hawaii or california as that floor is likely going to raise. Just really depends how many bullets you get to use up, but for the average REI taking less chances and higher quality one's will likely fair better.

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

$250/sq ft is rich. Should be sub $170 closer to $150-$160. In areas like this, you want to buy starter homes in the suburbs that are high 200s, low 300s that need a little help. Once you get closer to the median house price it's no longer worth the speculation aspect of it, like you mentioned. 

In those cases, almost always better to bet on the Hawaii or california as that floor is likely going to raise. Just really depends how many bullets you get to use up, but for the average REI taking less chances and higher quality one's will likely fair better.

..... Your analysis matched with my observation. I really need to pin your answer here.

So Marcus yes these are are the dilemma for us CA investors when investing OOS vs local. 

To be honest, the rapid appreciation in Milwaukee is very surprising, which is good, it creates 50% IRR return ! It's damn very facsinating and good for us the investor, but same time is also signaling, hot = good time to sell ; and to re-assess.

[V.G Jason]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

$250/sq ft is rich. Should be sub $170 closer to $150-$160. In areas like this, you want to buy starter homes in the suburbs that are high 200s, low 300s that need a little help. Once you get closer to the median house price it's no longer worth the speculation aspect of it, like you mentioned. 

In those cases, almost always better to bet on the Hawaii or california as that floor is likely going to raise. Just really depends how many bullets you get to use up, but for the average REI taking less chances and higher quality one's will likely fair better.

..... Your analysis matched with my observation. I really need to pin your answer here.

So Marcus yes these are are the dilemma for us CA investors when investing OOS vs local. 

To be honest, the rapid appreciation in Milwaukee is very surprising, which is good, it creates 50% IRR return ! It's damn very facsinating and good for us the investor, but same time is also signaling, hot = good time to sell ; and to re-assess.

 The rapid appreciation is likely not to be linear, so back to the Wayne Gretzky quote go where it's going, not been. I think Milwaukee is solid, but if we're expecting 2-3 years of consecutive very high growth I think we're a bit out of touch. 

Milwaukee for a Cali investor is more comfort level(OOS investing) and some form of diversification & speculation. I likely will take only speculate in these areas to trade the equity and consolidate out. That's the end goal with Madison, for example. 

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

$250/sq ft is rich. Should be sub $170 closer to $150-$160. In areas like this, you want to buy starter homes in the suburbs that are high 200s, low 300s that need a little help. Once you get closer to the median house price it's no longer worth the speculation aspect of it, like you mentioned. 

In those cases, almost always better to bet on the Hawaii or california as that floor is likely going to raise. Just really depends how many bullets you get to use up, but for the average REI taking less chances and higher quality one's will likely fair better.

..... Your analysis matched with my observation. I really need to pin your answer here.

So Marcus yes these are are the dilemma for us CA investors when investing OOS vs local. 

To be honest, the rapid appreciation in Milwaukee is very surprising, which is good, it creates 50% IRR return ! It's damn very facsinating and good for us the investor, but same time is also signaling, hot = good time to sell ; and to re-assess.

 The rapid appreciation is likely not to be linear, so back to the Wayne Gretzky quote go where it's going, not been. I think Milwaukee is solid, but if we're expecting 2-3 years of consecutive very high growth I think we're a bit out of touch. 

Milwaukee for a Cali investor is more comfort level(OOS investing) and some form of diversification & speculation. I likely will take only speculate in these areas to trade the equity and consolidate out. That's the end goal with Madison, for example. 

 @Marcus Auerbach and Jason , I found this data to be very useful and intriguing.
I checked the spread between Income, Fannie Mae Loan Limit and , ZHI Median.

Area income: Fannie Mae 1 Unit Dwelling Confirming Loan Limit: ratio
$158k->$1,150,000:7.27x (my zip code in CA)
$100k->$766,550:7.66 ( zip code 53209 in Milwaukee)

so these are expected but lets deep dive:

ZHI ratio
zip codeArea income:ZHI Median: ratio ZHI to income,current spread of
CAzip:$158k:$791k: ratio: 5.0x : 0.68% !
53209:$100K:$134K: ratio: 1.34x : 0.17% !

Spread between CA zip code to Fannie Mae Loan Limit:$359,000
Spread between 53209 zip code to Fannie Mae Loan Limit:$632,000

It seems Milwaukee area income is rising these days with 100k aveage income HH in 53208/53209, this is just for example, so this area is supporting this zip code to appreciate up to 400k-ish..... 

In other word, we don't actually have houing affordability problem if folks wanna move to Milwaukee, income is slowly rising there while home price can't catch up LOL,  I surprised also The Milwaukee income earner is crossing 100k based on Fannie Mae data LOL

[Carlos Ptriawan]

this is so fascinating. Next ten year growth could be Milwaukee LOL

[V.G Jason]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

this is so fascinating. Next ten year growth could be Milwaukee LOL

 The thing is for median income to still rise linearly, there needs to be industries pending here. I just don't see that happening in Milwaukee. Milwaukee has a solid industry footprint as is, just nothing that shouts to deter investment from TN, NC, CA, TX, FL. Or if you want to really gauge this, gauge the same math versus the the second or third cities in those states where the $400k is achievable where industry placement is quite possibly likelier.

I know you are a fellow Redfiner, as am I, the migration is key. When people move from Cali to you, this is a plus. New York to you, this is a plus. Chicago to you, this is a problem with Chicago. I could be very wrong with Milwaukee, I just do not see it having "booming" potential, I think it's way undervalued from a real estate point of view for REIs. People invest in Memphis, Columbus, some other chicken sht city. Milwaukee is way superior-- but I take Durham over Milwaukee, Houston or Dallas over Milwaukee. 

Madison I had the same problem with. I am partial cause I went to school here for my undergraduate degree. So maybe some bias, but I don't think it's on this massive boom upwards all the agents there loved to tell me. Fundamentally, the economy is healthcare(incl epic in that), university & retail. It's not demanding top tier industry(like tech or some form of innovation). 

[Marcus Auerbach]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

Thats not what I meant: 500k makes no sense as an investment, you want to be somewhere around 200-250k. We do not insure replacement cost, we insure purchase price. I don't think it makes sense to invest in an area where property values and replacement cost start to approach or even intersect.

Milwaukee is easily missunderstood by people who don't live here. The issue we have with some OOS investors is that they never have seen their property in person, they just leave it to the PM and object every repair bill. The house is 100 years old and it looks like holey hell, to the point where the city starts to get involved and we (investors) get slammed in the news for running down neighborhoods generating a anti-landlord sentiment we really don't need. The issue is also that in low value neighborhoods it's hard to justify capex investments, the increase in value is just not there. The math works a lot better in median priced neighborhoods, but that of course  conflicts with the cash flow centric approach.

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

Thats not what I meant: 500k makes no sense as an investment, you want to be somewhere around 200-250k. We do not insure replacement cost, we insure purchase price. I don't think it makes sense to invest in an area where property values and replacement cost start to approach or even intersect.

Milwaukee is easily missunderstood by people who don't live here. The issue we have with some OOS investors is that they never have seen their property in person, they just leave it to the PM and object every repair bill. The house is 100 years old and it looks like holey hell, to the point where the city starts to get involved and we (investors) get slammed in the news for running down neighborhoods generating a anti-landlord sentiment we really don't need. The issue is also that in low value neighborhoods it's hard to justify capex investments, the increase in value is just not there. The math works a lot better in median priced neighborhoods, but that of course  conflicts with the cash flow centric approach.

Understood.

But actualy the point that I want to assert is that the valuation of Milwaukee is supported by people income.

In 53208/53209, Median income there is 100k. Median Home price is 140k
In madison,WI. Median income is 117k, Median home price is $370k
In Palo Alto,CA, median income is 178k, Median home price is $3,200,000
Cleveland median income is 92k btw...

So Milwaukee still has long appreciation play that can still be supported by people income, what I don't understand is whether the statistic is accurate, I thought the income in that zip code is only 50k. 

I have long suspicious there that people that live in Class C neighborhood is actually richer than folks living in Class B, I've seen in CA too. Or , people that live in class B has much more equity because of appreciation, while their w2 income is actually the same between Class B and Class C.

[Marcus Auerbach]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

Thats not what I meant: 500k makes no sense as an investment, you want to be somewhere around 200-250k. We do not insure replacement cost, we insure purchase price. I don't think it makes sense to invest in an area where property values and replacement cost start to approach or even intersect.

Milwaukee is easily missunderstood by people who don't live here. The issue we have with some OOS investors is that they never have seen their property in person, they just leave it to the PM and object every repair bill. The house is 100 years old and it looks like holey hell, to the point where the city starts to get involved and we (investors) get slammed in the news for running down neighborhoods generating a anti-landlord sentiment we really don't need. The issue is also that in low value neighborhoods it's hard to justify capex investments, the increase in value is just not there. The math works a lot better in median priced neighborhoods, but that of course  conflicts with the cash flow centric approach.

Understood.

But actualy the point that I want to assert is that the valuation of Milwaukee is supported by people income.

In 53208/53209, Median income there is 100k. Median Home price is 140k
In madison,WI. Median income is 117k, Median home price is $370k
In Palo Alto,CA, median income is 178k, Median home price is $3,200,000
Cleveland median income is 92k btw...

So Milwaukee still has long appreciation play that can still be supported by people income, what I don't understand is whether the statistic is accurate, I thought the income in that zip code is only 50k. 

I have long suspicious there that people that live in Class C neighborhood is actually richer than folks living in Class B, I've seen in CA too. Or , people that live in class B has much more equity because of appreciation, while their w2 income is actually the same between Class B and Class C.

That does not seem right and when I look it uo I get 31k for 53208 and 33k for 53209. The latter includes also some B neighborhoods. 

BTW - Zipcodes are not a great way to segment Milwaukee. Many of them overlap neighborhoods that are VERY different. And instead of 53208 I'd look at West Allis or Wauwatosa, maybe even at the higher priced Shorewood, Menomonee Falls or Brookfield.

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:

@Carlos Ptriawan yeah very low price, but would not be my choice of neighborhood.

This is why you must evaluate properties not strictly off intrinsic #s like people did in low rate era. You must calculate on land + price to rebuild. In California, you'll almost always be in the money under $1M. Maybe not today with a DSCR formula, but by year 3-5 you likely will be. By year 8-10, you know the equity gains.

 This is what's surprising me at beginning of the year.

The Milwaukee insurance agent called me hey your dwelling coverage should be 600k ! holy cow no way I said, why ? because if your house got burnt that's the cost to rebuild the house in 2023 !

But he's right I think, the FMV for the house is 1/3 of rebuilding cost.

So I found:

FMV in SF 3/1 San Jose 1200sqft    $1,200,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $500K
FMV in SF 3/1 Milwaukee 2000 sqft $160,000. Rebuilding cost by the insurance= $600k

Now logically speaking, FMV should be >= Rebuilding cost.
So if insurance guy calculate to build the house is costing me $300 PPSF.

Then in that case I have to buy house that costs me around $300 PPSF.

In other word, if cash-flow property got fire, then it doesn't make sense to rebuild that house in 2023, because we only have the land value then, there's no point to rebuild if the FMV still less than rebuild cost....It feels so strange. Am I think it correctly ?

You should call your insurance agent and change your policy from replacement value to purchase value. Your payment should drop by two thirds.

$160,000 for a 2,000 sqft house is cheap, even for Milwaukee proper. New construction around here starts between 500-700k, but nobody builds in Milwaukee proper, its all in the suburbs. Median for the Milwaukee metro area is around 320k, and anything below 250k is usually rough. The most competitive market segment is 250k to 450k, nice suburbs are between 500k and 800k and certain areas a good share of homes over one million, especially in the top school districts.

The City of Milwaukee (Milwaukee proper) is about 580,000 people, Milwaukee County has 19 municipalities, many of the very affluent. And if you include the suburbs the Milwaukee metro area has about 1.6 million people. Almost all of the low income areas are located within the City of Milwaukee, and while that is a small percentage of the overall population, this is often what people think about when they talk about Milwaukee.

 Correct, so higher quality asset in Milwaukee is about 400-500k, will that be equal to $250 PPSF ? So if we want to buy higher good quality asset where insurance cost is matching with rebuilding cost in Milwaukee, I guess we have to buy something around 400k or min $250 PPSF ? 

But if we have to invest around 500k SF in Milwaukee, the dilemma is that that's the starting condo 2/1 price too in bay area ; also in Hawaii I could have cash-flowing 2/1 STR.

In summary the dilemma right now is:
1. if we continue invest in highest CF in OOS, the replacement cost is 3 times the FMV. So maintain this asset is risky. Not to mention higher property tax+insurance.
2. if we chase highest appreciation good quality SF OOS, the initial cost is similar to starting condo price in good appreciation location in CA and Hawaii.

When home price is higher than average US home price (400k-ish), The "allure" of investment OOS has significantly diminish.

Thats not what I meant: 500k makes no sense as an investment, you want to be somewhere around 200-250k. We do not insure replacement cost, we insure purchase price. I don't think it makes sense to invest in an area where property values and replacement cost start to approach or even intersect.

Milwaukee is easily missunderstood by people who don't live here. The issue we have with some OOS investors is that they never have seen their property in person, they just leave it to the PM and object every repair bill. The house is 100 years old and it looks like holey hell, to the point where the city starts to get involved and we (investors) get slammed in the news for running down neighborhoods generating a anti-landlord sentiment we really don't need. The issue is also that in low value neighborhoods it's hard to justify capex investments, the increase in value is just not there. The math works a lot better in median priced neighborhoods, but that of course  conflicts with the cash flow centric approach.

Understood.

But actualy the point that I want to assert is that the valuation of Milwaukee is supported by people income.

In 53208/53209, Median income there is 100k. Median Home price is 140k
In madison,WI. Median income is 117k, Median home price is $370k
In Palo Alto,CA, median income is 178k, Median home price is $3,200,000
Cleveland median income is 92k btw...

So Milwaukee still has long appreciation play that can still be supported by people income, what I don't understand is whether the statistic is accurate, I thought the income in that zip code is only 50k. 

I have long suspicious there that people that live in Class C neighborhood is actually richer than folks living in Class B, I've seen in CA too. Or , people that live in class B has much more equity because of appreciation, while their w2 income is actually the same between Class B and Class C.

That does not seem right and when I look it uo I get 31k for 53208 and 33k for 53209. The latter includes also some B neighborhoods. 

BTW - Zipcodes are not a great way to segment Milwaukee. Many of them overlap neighborhoods that are VERY different. And instead of 53208 I'd look at West Allis or Wauwatosa, maybe even at the higher priced Shorewood, Menomonee Falls or Brookfield.

 So why in the world Fannie Mae designated 100k as median , maybe the purpose is to create more low income group in the area ? These are totally confusing

[Jake Barr]

Milwaukee is certainly gaining attention as one of the hottest real estate markets to invest in for 2024 due to a combination of factors. First and foremost, the city has maintained a reputation for housing affordability, making it an attractive option for both investors and homebuyers seeking reasonable property prices. Additionally, Milwaukee boasts a diverse and resilient economy with strengths in manufacturing, healthcare, and technology, contributing to a stable job market. Economic resilience, coupled with ongoing infrastructure development initiatives and urban revitalization projects, enhances the overall appeal of the city. If the positive trends in job growth, population dynamics, and investor-friendly policies persist, Milwaukee is poised to offer promising real estate investment opportunities in the coming year. And finally, as seen here,  Milwaukee and Wisconsin in general is boasting one of the strongest markets for appreciation. that is certainly when being an investor in this city is such a great option. 

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Jake Barr:

Milwaukee is certainly gaining attention as one of the hottest real estate markets to invest in for 2024 due to a combination of factors. First and foremost, the city has maintained a reputation for housing affordability, making it an attractive option for both investors and homebuyers seeking reasonable property prices. Additionally, Milwaukee boasts a diverse and resilient economy with strengths in manufacturing, healthcare, and technology, contributing to a stable job market. Economic resilience, coupled with ongoing infrastructure development initiatives and urban revitalization projects, enhances the overall appeal of the city. If the positive trends in job growth, population dynamics, and investor-friendly policies persist, Milwaukee is poised to offer promising real estate investment opportunities in the coming year. And finally, as seen here,  Milwaukee and Wisconsin in general is boasting one of the strongest markets for appreciation. that is certainly when being an investor in this city is such a great option. 

 i meant to say, if i'm young guy or new immigrant to this country, i would move to milwaukee or birmingham instantly, it's incredible what you can buy with 150k in milwaukee or birmingham, it's equivalent to 1 mil SF in california. look at the beautiful home that I sent few days ago, the intrinsic value of that house is 120k, land value is 20k, with possibility of all remote job that's available in USA, that's crazy, think about it for a sec.

US is really great because of wisconsin and alabama, in thailand you can't get similar opportunity like his.

[Marcus Auerbach]

We finally have enough 2024 data from MLS for a solid read where this year is going: the median home price in the greater Milwaukee area is now $320,000, that's up 11.8% YoY.

And we see a similar trend with rents: I don't see that direction change anytime soon: we would need to lose a bunch of people or ad several thousand units.