What can cause rent prices to fall?
Sure! Anything that affects the balance of supply and demand could cause rent prices to fall. I'll betcha rent prices in Wilmington, Ohio collapsed when the biggest employer, DHL, shut down. An economic depression of any sort would cause people to substitute expensive rentals for cheaper ones, putting downward pressure on rents. It would also cause people to double up or move in with family, decreasing demand for rentals. Anything that makes buying a house cheaper will actually make rents lower, too, because more people will buy houses when houses get cheaper... those people are moving out of rentals, thus decreasing demand for rentals. "The buy-to-rent investment bubble created (in some markets) a large number of new housing starts often exceeding the available demand.  Since people were investing in the capital gain, they didn't mind whether a place was rented or not.  Many places stood empty at the prices investors wished to charge. In the UK where building restrictions are so dire that few new houses can be built, new house production is less than market demand which keeps up rental prices.  There just isn't any stock. In the US, where construction is more liberal, rental prices can fall as new stock enters the market.  A driver will be where the sales market dries up and owners must rent to cover at least some of their mortgage losses. Or, as Joel points out, if a major employer which dominates a small town, leaves.  Many old industrial towns feature both low rentals and plenty of empty, low-priced property.  Liverpool, in the UK, features entire empty neighbourhoods all boarded up. If you're looking to track metrics on this simply look at migration patterns.  Where large numbers of people are moving ""towards"" prices (and rentals) will rise.  Where people are moving ""away"" all prices fall." "In the US, the government effectively sets a price floor for rents with a concept called ""prevailing rent"" for government subsidy. Even the crappiest, minimally compliant hovel is ultimately worth whatever the government will issue housing vouchers for. Rent can and does fluctuate for the higher end of the market. Basically in most places the available, cheap credit has a negative impact on rent prices, and tighter, costlier credit increases demand and rents. Local economic events have an impact too. If the company closes in a company town, people leave." In Memphis, Tn., rents were stabilized from falling in the recession because all the foreclosed on home owners added to the rental market, increasing demand and thus stabilizing pricing.
Here are some plausible reasons why markets might continue to close: The issue is that housing price increases can't sustain themselves indefinitely, in comparison to the rental market. Increases drive people back to the rental market, which brings the rental market up.  Also, just as a AirBnB would drive property prices to go up, it also allows people who would otherwise not be able to buy a house to make the house purchase. Example - Loftium is a mortgage lender that will give you a cheaper loan if you put your house on AirBnB. That enables people to purchase a home when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. So over time (many years), the market should work itself out.  In the short term, AirBnB can definitely cause market fluctuations. For example, it might enable people to continue to own their homes during a depression, which would cause a supply shortage.   The only factor that affects ownership prices differently than rental prices in the long term would be regulation. Here's a [good article](http://www.sightline.org/2017/08/14/why-seattle-builds-apartments-but-vancouver-bc-builds-condos/) about that aspect specifically. There could be a number of reasons for a rent increase. The only information I can offer is how I calculate what rent I will charge. The minimum I would ever charge per unit (Mortgage payment + Water) / Number of units This number is the minimum because it's what I need to keep afloat.  Keep in mind these are ballpark numbers The target rent ((Mortgage payment + Water) / Number of units)*1.60 I mark up the price 60% for a few reasons. First, the building needs a repair budget. That money has to come from somewhere. Second, I want to put away for my next acquisition and third I want to make a profit. These get me close to my rental price but ultimately it depends on your location and the comparables in the area. If my target rent is 600 a month but the neighbors are getting 700-800 for the same exact unit I might ask more. It also depends on the types of units. Some of my buildings, all of the units are identical. Other buildings half of the units are bigger than the other half so clearly I wouldn't charge a equal amount for them. Ultimately you have to remember we're not in the game to lose money. I know what my renters are going to pay before I even put an offer in on a building because that's how I stay in business. It might go up over the years but it will always outpace my expenses for that property. In most cases there is no debt attached to those properties, so there is no risk to financial institutions.   So that leaves us with an increase in supply of houses most people can't afford at current prices, expect a short-term boost to construction while many are converted to duplex/apartment type properties and slight downward pressure on prices. Obviously these are wild generalisations and the effect will be massively different in most cities compared to rural or small-town areas. "QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged.  This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs.  This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs.  Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become ""upside-down,"" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income.  Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates.  Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank.  Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate.  In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to ""eat"" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset.  If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value." Usually you want two consecutive quarters before declaring a recession.   This blog doesn't reference any seasonal adjustment; a one or two month decline may be to any number of reasons. E.g. labor numbers dropped this month largely attributed to weather. I only see screen shots of excel sheets, I'm not willing to invest any time into parsing that out :( More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money. "The ultimate purpose of Case-Schiller is to build contracts that you can use to stop worrying about this, for a price. You or your lender might buy cash settled put options based on the index, and hope that if your home falls in value, the your options become ""in the money"" to make up the shortfall. The major problem that I can see with this is finding people to take the other side of that contract. Renters would be the primary candidates, but Americans are on average so overweight in real estate that there really isn't anyone underexposed to real estate who would benefit from diversification, and the tax advantage will give people far cheaper avenues address this. Viewed in this light, your question has a sort of obvious answer: Case-Schiller is historical data, and you need to know about the future historical data. Case-Schiller can't do it alone, but you can use futures markets to predict it. Problem you'll have is that the market itself will optimize this temporal trade: if there's a market drop anticipated, the market will charge you more for market drop insurance." "... interest rates will go up.  When that happens prices will be kept down.   (if you can only afford $1,500/month payments and the interest portion of the mortgage goes up then you have less to spend on the house)  There are also millions of houses that are foreclosed or in some process of foreclosure that are being kept off the market.  That ""shadow inventory"" being kept off the market is keeping supply artificially low.  At some point the shadow inventory will be brought to market and as supply increases it will hold prices down.  ... [housing prices could drop another 20% or more](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577348083297932466.html)...  and it could take a decde or more before the housing market works through the effects of the great recession.  btw, I just refinanced again.  It was easier this time than any of the other times I've refinanced.  This time I got 2.875% for 10 years...  I'll save over 20 grand of interest over the next 10 years.   The banks are loaning money out, and at incredibly low interest rates." "I wasn't on minimum wage.  I was finding that housing in the Boston area was increasing in price faster than my $80k/year salary.  And yes, it *is* a fallacy because your statement is essentially tautological: ""if you want a lower price for housing, go to where prices on housing are lower (and don't mind the additional costs of time or money spent commuting).""" Because they could move, the same reason you don't raise it today. If demand for housing doesn't increase then if you raised your rent by 50% after minimum wage went up that much you would be well above the market rate. Also in your scenario you know your renters are minimum wage workers who just got a raise. Most landlords don't know that much detail about their renters finances. They are two different animals. When you rent you are purchasing a service.  The landlord, as your service provider, has to make a profit, pay employees to do maintenance, and buy materials. The price of these things will increase with inflation, and that rolls into your rent price. Taxes also are passed to the tenant, and those tend to only go upward. Market forces of supply/demand will drive fluctuation of prices as well, as other posts have described. When you buy, you are purchasing just the asset - the home. This price will also be driven by supply/demand in the market, but don't try to compare it to buying a service. Cheers! An important factor you failed to mention is the costs associated with owning a home.  For example, every 10 / 15 years, you have to replace your AC unit ($5k) and what about replacing a roof (depends on size, but could be $10k)?  Not to mention, paying a couple thousand annually for property taxes.  When renting, you never have to worry about any of these three..... "I do not believe there is a strong correlation between CPI (Consumer Price Index) and housing value appreciation. Take, for example, New York City which has the highest CPI in the US.  A great deal of the CPI number is skewed by Manhattan.  One can live in Brooklyn or Queens and avoid some of NYC's high CPI.  I would say that housing appreciation occurs because of the human activity in the area.  That same human activity is what drives the CPI.  There are other contributing factors, like limits on economies of scale.  You simply cannot set down a Super Walmart in much of NYC, so goods are distributed over a larger number of stores.  (Sure, NYC is a port city, but the goods are distributed within the city by trucks.) The San Francisco Bay Area is another high CPI area in the US.  Here, as well, it is the location that draws people.  While NYC is mostly about economic activity, the SF Bay Area is a mix of the draw of a great location and the economic activity that occurs due to the large number of people living there.  I know of a house in Oakland that sold for approximately $350k, in 2004/05.  It was located not too far from the ""Killing Fields,"" as they were known locally.  It was not the worst neighborhood in Oakland, but it was not very far from it.  This was for a shabby, single-story unit which I believe had 5 (maybe 6) rooms.  That is a lot of money for a house that required a lot of attention and was in a bad neighborhood.  I have no idea how the housing market is after the housing bubble, but the higher value areas had the most room to fall and many of them fell hard. Ultimately, it is supply and demand that determines the CPI and housing values.  This supply and demand is determined by the human activity in the area and some practical considerations regarding the area. A final note: If we are talking about a primary residence, it should not necessarily be looked at as an investment.  First and foremost, it is a necessity.  Second, if you need to hire people for the maintenance and/or upgrades, that will eat into your gains.  Contractors are not cheap, especially where they are in high demand.  Finally, the tax incentive is actually not that great.  Sure, you take what you can get, but its impact is relatively marginal." You're assuming that landlords base rental rates on what tenants or potential tenants can afford to pay and that is not the way it works: They base their rental rates on what they think they can get on the market, not what they think the potential tenant can pay.   Complicating things now concerning rental rates, at least in the U.S., is the monsterous influx of foreign capital looking for a safe haven for storing wealth and it's really messing up our housing markets.  Complicating this complication is that housing is really an infrastructure issue and should not be left willy-nilly to capitalists to provide since they have proven a thousand-million times over they are completely incompetent when it comes to adequately dealing with anything more complicated than a quarterly return projected over five quarters. Seriously, capitalism is at its end times and it will either evolve into something that works or it will be swept away and replaced with something that does work.