Wall Street Journal will not praise homes as investments even after 80% equity rise in 5 years

Stop the presses!
.
These sentences are on the front page of today's WSJ. 
.
"Home equity has climbed nearly 80% since early 2020—up from $19.5 trillion—thanks to a turbocharged rise in house prices. That was about twice the rise in financial wealth including stocks and bonds as of the end of 2024, according to the Federal Reserve."
.
So the WSJ admits what little old Jack Reed [me] has been saying on his free Facebook page for years: a principal residence beats the hell out of stocks and bonds as an investment. And there are two dozen structural reasons for this. It's not just a lucky streak. Structural reasons means it's sort of against the law for houses not to go up in value.
.
What laws? Zoning for example. Try building a house worth less than mine anywhere near mine. Or how about the $250K per spouse capital gains exclusion when you sell a principal residence? Do you get that when you sell your Nvidia stock?
.
So does WSJ admit you should buy a home. Oh, perish the thought. The subhead is "home equity brings higher expenses, and tapping into the wealth is difficult."
.
Excuse me. Property taxes are one of the expenses they are whining about. But that is only a problem if you are stupid enough to buy in a state other than CA. We have Prop 13 and it's offspring. My house is worth $2.5M. Property taxes around $9,000. You can also buy in states that have low property taxes like AL.
.
Get THIS WSJ complaint. Lots of equity can lower how much financial aid your kid qualifies for. So does lots of stock and bonds.
.
So what is WSJ's big idea? That you should first qualify for as much welfare as possible?
.
Another knock on home equity to the Journal is it is hard to spend it? Well? You can get a home equity loan or a RAM. You can do a cash out refi. Those are all tax-free.
.
Can you do these cash-out tax-free things more easily with stocks, which is sort of the Journal's implication? Hell no! Margin loans are limited to about 50% of value and they have margin calls.
.
Here's another WSJ knock on home equity. Sometimes it goes down. Horror of horrors. Buy stocks and bonds instead. They NEVER go down.
.
Since about 1970, home prices have rarely gone down and never below the general trend line. In other words, they usually only go down after a ridiculous period, like the early 2000s, they just go back down to the long-term trend line, not below it.
.
And of course the Journal points out that insurance costs and HOA dues may rise. HOA is not going to rise on you if you follow my advice. I said no condos.
.
I have been owning homes since 1969. Insurance company panics are a regular temporary phenomenon. Like bad weather.
.
Another thing they knock is no home equity loans on rental properties. Once again, I told you not to buy those.
.
Here's another blockbuster revelation. "Home prices have increased 47% 2/20 to 2/25...But home equity is up even more."
.
I have only told readers that about a million times. The leverage of borrowing 80% or more of the purchase price multiplies returns by orders of magnitude. And inflation reduces the real cost of your mortgage payment and loan balance thereby increasing your real equity.
.
They hang their usual black crepe paper about the decrease in unit sales. Who cares other than Realtors? Lack of inventory is part of what props up home prices.
.

They say inflation in maintenance costs is another reason to be bummed out in spite of the huge gains in equity. That's stupid. You make out like a bandit because your home value goes up and your real equity grows more because of inflation reducing your real loan balance. And the Journal idiots want you to yell, "Stop the inflation! It made me pay more for lawn-mowing gasoline!"
.
The article ends with 8 paragraphs whining about possibly qualifying for less college financial aid because of your home equity. So burn the house down and blow all the insurance proceeds in Vegas. Your kid'll qualify for a Pell Grant.