But you would be happy to sell a put.
Sorry, I'm confused about which side of the deal you think it would be good to be on - would you want to be the seller or the buyer of the put?
You said:
I'd actually pay pretty big dollars to buy one of these options.
Why, if you thought the price would be above $650K in three years? I wouldn't pay anything for the put if I was so sure of that.
To me, the price would be worked out by taking the "expected" rate of growth over the next three years and from that working out the expected value of the house at that time, and then taking the difference between $650K and that figure (that's the simplified version - the real version would need to include interest rates for opportunity cost, and possibly even expected volatility, and it would depend on how rent was handled with the option).
For example, if you thought growth would average 6% over the next three years, then a $500K house would be worth just under $600K then (ignoring transaction costs and rent). That would make the put worth $50K (ie. break-even if the 6% average growth rate held). Lower growth would put the buyer ahead while higher growth would put him behind (although the most-behind he could become would be $50K, the premium of the option).
Selling the put could be risky though. The most you could make would be $50K, whereas you could lose much more if prices fell or went nowhere over those three years. For example, if the house was still only worth $500K in three years, then you'd be down $100K (the $150K difference minus the $50K premium).
That's why buying calls is lower risk. A call to buy at $550K in three years time would also be worth $50K (using the simplified pricing version), but the most you could lose would be $50K whereas you could make much more if prices went much higher. For example, if the house was actually worth $800K in three years, you'd be up $200K.
GP