Stocks beat real estate over time?

Stocks beat real estate over time?

Rental Property Investor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes

I've been running the numbers and although real estate has been very attractive to me with leverage (I own 3 properties), running the numbers even with leverage real estate is not as attractive in the long run, because although you are earning higher CoC returns on leveraged real estate, the reality is the asset itself is eventually deleveraged once paid off, and it didn't appreciate in value as much as stocks would have over the same period. Over time, the advantage of leverage is removed, and you're left with an asset that barely kept pace with inflation. Even Seattle has been at 3-4% over the last 20+ years when averaged.

If I buy a 100K house that appreciates 3% over the long run (per study by famed economist who called the last crash, Robert Shiller), in 30 years I have 242,726.25 dollars. Not only is this a petty return, since it just keeps up with inflation, I got to pay for all kinds of repairs during that time.

Even if I Buy the house with leverage, due to the low appreciation rate, I'm still not earning that much. When you compare it with stocks:

100K invested in an index fund that earns 10% a year over 30 years, gives me: 1,744,940.22

To make it even worse, a 4% safe withdrawal rate for the actual value of what my assets would be in these two scenarios, I'm making about 900K a year in SWR eligible funds, compared to a paltry fraction of that with my real estate, which is ultimately a job. Even if we continue with the numbers for the above two scenarios, you are making $20,391 a year in profits after expenses (all rents and expenses adjusted for inflation of 3%) from the house being rented out, compared to what I could be making with the stocks $69,797

Am I wrong here? Was initially thinking real estate was the way to go, and it has certainly been good to me buying during the downturn, but I think I may be better off cashing out and putting 500+K to use in the market. Maybe not now, with the run up, but DCA over time.

1Reply
319 views

Most Popular Reply

Ned CareyPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
10y

Yes you are missing a key point. Income producing Real estate does just that - produces income which you have not figured into your equation. 

No your tenants and the cash flow pay for the repairs.

Real estate can, and I believe should, cash flow over 10% net after leverage. AND it also appreciates. The total IRR of real estate I think pretty easily beats stocks. How much it beasts stocks depends on many factors.

However real estate is very risky. That greater return comes with substantial risk to those that do not know and understand real estate.

See this reply in the discussion

78 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Joshua DawsonPro Member
    Real Estate Broker · Dublin, OH · Member since 2013 · 111 posts · 36 votes
    10y

    OK. that last post didn't work as expected

    Boston Real Estate vs. Stock Market Last 10 Years

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    10y

    As someone who has owned real estate, stocks and businesses, all I can say is that the analogy used in the original post is flawed, and therefore all subsequent discussions referring back to that analogy are flawed.

    Owning a non-controlling share of a company (i.e., typical stock ownership) is not analogous to real estate investing. It's analogous to owning a REIT or a property purchased at market value. I'd be willing to bet that nobody on this forum purchases publicly listed stocks at anything but market value -- if you do, you have a competitive advantage that isn't applicable to this thread. Likewise, I assume that nobody on this forum purchases investment real estate at market value (without some other income producing benefits).

    So again, the analogy of stock ownership to investing in real estate doesn't hold.

    The correct analogy to investing in real estate is building your own company, where you have a controlling stock interest.  You make decisions on what to do with your asset (property or business), you make decisions on how best to grow the value of your asset (property or business), you make decisions on if/when to sell your asset (property or business), etc.

    I have historically earned nearly 20% (IRR) on my real estate investments. I have historically earned more than that on my business investments -- but that's because I had a controlling stock interest in those businesses -- I didn't just purchase a non-controlling interest in a business at market value. Just like I didn't purchase a non-controlling interest in those properties at market value.

    So, if you want to compare buying publicly listed stocks at market value with buying publicly listed real estate at market value, that's a fair comparison.  And if you do that, I agree with the OP that stocks win, hands-down!

    But, again, that's not what people on this forum tend to do.

    I would purchase real estate (at below market and with a controlling interest) over publicly listed stock any day of any week of any month of any year.  Hands down.

    That said, if you want to compare real estate investing with owning stock in a business that you control, I'd probably again go with the stock ownership...though for many people (given their business acumen), I'd probably still argue real estate is the better investment.

  • Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    Historically stocks have crushed real estate over the years Of course you buy stocks at market value but value changes on every trade it is called liquidity. Stocks don't take up any of your time How much is your time worth? Stocks pay rent Dividends without having to do any capex upkeep. This is a biger pockets post from a few years back

     http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2013/07/17...

    There have been hundreds of stocks that have risen over 1000% 

    http://ivanhoff.com/2013/11/11/98-stocks-went-1000...

    Plus you could buy the reits like Vornado Realty Trust that have risen over 16% over the years 

    The greatest amount of wealth is created thru the markets,but as mentioned you are comparing apples to oranges. 

  • Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    10y

    I voted for @Patrick Britton overall side-by-side analysis in pointing out some ways to leverage and short through futures and options. Those are above the heads of the average investor, but not difficult to do outside of retirement funds. Pointing out ways to control without owning? Good point (outside of retirement). I wanted to point out, in general, you can't play in that realm within the coat of retirement or annuities or any tax-advantaged plan. Certainly not inside a 401k or 403b or TSP. Where is most of Jack and Jill's J.O.B money at? Outside of where these strategies can be implemented. Needs to be noted.

    My other beef with his post is saying yes, you can buy paper securities without money, but it is exclusively done by the uber wealthy. Oh- but at least the returns are crummy.  Ok....? 

    It is an apples to oranges comparison.  RE for the most part is not rigged.  It's not a good ol' boy back room insider and hyper-trading mosh pit of unfairness where you as the 'investor' have no say in any of it. You can't buy below market value or improve the value. Again, I have both, but far more in RE.  Cheers!

  • Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Steve Vaughan:

    I voted for @Patrick Britton overall side-by-side analysis in pointing out some ways to leverage and short through futures and options. Those are above the heads of the average investor, but not difficult to do outside of retirement funds. Pointing out ways to control without owning? Good point (outside of retirement). I wanted to point out, in general, you can't play in that realm within the coat of retirement or annuities or any tax-advantaged plan. Certainly not inside a 401k or 403b or TSP. Where is most of Jack and Jill's J.O.B money at? Outside of where these strategies can be implemented. Needs to be noted.

    My other beef with his post is saying yes, you can buy paper securities without money, but it is exclusively done by the uber wealthy. Oh- but at least the returns are crummy.  Ok....? 

    It is an apples to oranges comparison.  RE for the most part is not rigged.  It's not a good ol' boy back room insider and hyper-trading mosh pit of unfairness where you as the 'investor' have no say in any of it. You can't buy below market value or improve the value. Again, I have both, but far more in RE.  Cheers!

     How can you say real estate is not rigged when we just came thru the most corrupt mortgage market collapse of all time What about all the political deals for zoning development that made in the back rooms. What about all the real estate scams over the years land deals Florida  swamp land etc. Everything is rigged we just have short memories and chose to not believe it 

  • Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    10y

    I said for the most part it's not rigged @Account Closed. I believe it's not AS rigged. Neither is perfect by any stretch.  We can choose not to purchase swamp land in FL.  You can't choose not to buy into a certain corrupt company with an index, ETF or other mutual fund, for instance.  We as individual paper investors can't compete with the high velocity trading computers exploiting arbitrages out there.    Over-all wall street is a lot more rigged than RE.  That was my point in that half sentence.  Thanks!

  • Investor · Kennewick, WA · Member since 2015 · 8 posts · 6 votes
    10y

     I think the example were using is poor because it wouldn't be a good idea to just take 100k and buy a house outright (that's how I interpreted your example and that's my opinion on buying homes straight cash). Understand that the 100k house you're buying is used with only 25 percent down so 1/4 the amount of cash. Over time your tenant(s) is/are creating cash flow, paying down the loan amount, giving you large tax deductions (if you're not seeing a CPA... Do so) and allowing your home value to rise at 3% a year. Sounds like a win to me. I guess if I have 100k and I'm scooping up 100k houses I'll take 3 (I assume I pay some closing costs and fix up). I understand that your trying to make the example easy but it is not fair for comparison.

    However, let's take a quick look at your dividends gain that you pay capital gains taxes on. If I have 100k in stocks and your taking your dividend payment at lets say a very high dividend payout of roughly 4 percent a year from a reputable company like chevron, you're dividends would create $4000 a year I'm sure many of us can attest to having a higher cash flow than 4k a year especially if you can find a property under value with today's low interest rates, in the many available hot renting markets. 

    Ultimately I believe people should be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and real estate. But believe real estate if done right can make you extremely wealthy at not only a faster rate than mutual funds, but also a safer way. 

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    10y

    @Joshua Dawson I am sure Boston RE is great. When we start comparing specific REI locations vs individual stocks this is where it really gets fun;)

    Last 10 years.  

    Apple 5000%

  • Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    @Steve Vaughan sorry for sounding harsh yes on our small scale of buying properties for the most part it is not rigged like Wall street but we should always have in the back of our mind that there will always be unforeseen corrupt forces working against  us  whether it be someone trying to hide mold or bad foundations or insider knowledge on zoning changes yes we can choose not to buy something but when the facts are distorted(fraud) we will still be fooled just look at all the wholesalers trying to buy houses with empty promises 

  • Visalia-Fresno, CA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 863 votes
    10y

    Investing and your pool of assets is like a shopping basket of groceries. 

    When you see a overweight person pushing a shopping basket full of ice cream, something doesn't look right.  You want a diversification of assets.... a few vegetables, beer, meat, snacks, water, milk, etc....

    Frank

  • Visalia-Fresno, CA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 863 votes
    10y

    I want a thicker tax return. I can visually picture my tax return, sitting on a desk ready for me to pick up from my accountant.  So thick I have to buy a new scanner to scan the return and share with my lender.  So thick I need it bound.  So thick I need a new filing cabinet.

    Owning just stocks will not create me a thicker tax return.  Owning more real estate will create me a thicker tax return.


    Frank

  • Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Alex Nelson:

     I think the example were using is poor because it wouldn't be a good idea to just take 100k and buy a house outright (that's how I interpreted your example and that's my opinion on buying homes straight cash). Understand that the 100k house you're buying is used with only 25 percent down so 1/4 the amount of cash. Over time your tenant(s) is/are creating cash flow, paying down the loan amount, giving you large tax deductions (if you're not seeing a CPA... Do so) and allowing your home value to rise at 3% a year. Sounds like a win to me. I guess if I have 100k and I'm scooping up 100k houses I'll take 3 (I assume I pay some closing costs and fix up). I understand that your trying to make the example easy but it is not fair for comparison.

    However, let's take a quick look at your dividends gain that you pay capital gains taxes on. If I have 100k in stocks and your taking your dividend payment at lets say a very high dividend payout of roughly 4 percent a year from a reputable company like chevron, you're dividends would create $4000 a year I'm sure many of us can attest to having a higher cash flow than 4k a year especially if you can find a property under value with today's low interest rates, in the many available hot renting markets. 

    Ultimately I believe people should be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and real estate. But believe real estate if done right can make you extremely wealthy at not only a faster rate than mutual funds, but also a safer way. 

     Its $4000 a year if you don't compound your dividends but increases  exponentially if you do You cant do that with your rents but have increasing amount of expenses that have to be offset by rising rent or appreciation 

  • Investor · Kennewick, WA · Member since 2015 · 8 posts · 6 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Alex Nelson:

     I think the example were using is poor because it wouldn't be a good idea to just take 100k and buy a house outright (that's how I interpreted your example and that's my opinion on buying homes straight cash). Understand that the 100k house you're buying is used with only 25 percent down so 1/4 the amount of cash. Over time your tenant(s) is/are creating cash flow, paying down the loan amount, giving you large tax deductions (if you're not seeing a CPA... Do so) and allowing your home value to rise at 3% a year. Sounds like a win to me. I guess if I have 100k and I'm scooping up 100k houses I'll take 3 (I assume I pay some closing costs and fix up). I understand that your trying to make the example easy but it is not fair for comparison.

    However, let's take a quick look at your dividends gain that you pay capital gains taxes on. If I have 100k in stocks and your taking your dividend payment at lets say a very high dividend payout of roughly 4 percent a year from a reputable company like chevron, you're dividends would create $4000 a year I'm sure many of us can attest to having a higher cash flow than 4k a year especially if you can find a property under value with today's low interest rates, in the many available hot renting markets. 

    Ultimately I believe people should be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and real estate. But believe real estate if done right can make you extremely wealthy at not only a faster rate than mutual funds, but also a safer way. 

     Its $4000 a year if you don't compound your dividends but increases  exponentially if you do You cant do that with your rents but have increasing amount of expenses that have to be offset by rising rent or appreciation 

     But in theory couldn't I reinvest my cash flow/ tax benefits caused by expenses from the properties I have purchased and reinvest in more properties? If I cash flow even 4k a year from one property I can buy a second property at 100k in 6 years then I'm at 2 properties, then in 3 years same thing, then 1.5 years and so on I would own quite a bit of properties in 30 years creating a lot of cash flow of only a 25k initial investment. Or in 15 years sell some of the properties because the renter built your equity and you buy bigger properties with more doors and create even more cash flow. 

  • Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    @Alex Nelson ( great counterpoint) as they use to say in the 60's its all groovy That is why we love all the ways of making money .'Live long and prosper" -Spock-

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Franklin Romine:
    You want a diversification of assets.... a few vegetables, beer, meat, snacks, water, milk, etc....

    I personally don't want diversification.

    I want control.  And diversification is the enemy of control.

    Wealthy people tend not to be very diversified...that's how they became wealthy.  They specialized in one asset class that they could meticulously control -- a business, real estate, intellectual property, etc.

    Diversification is great when you don't the knowledge, time, inclination and/or experience to specialize.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Stocks don't take up any of your time 

    ....

    There have been hundreds of stocks that have risen over 1000% 

    Those two concepts are contradictory.  The only way that stocks don't take up any of your time is if you invest by throwing darts or if you invest in a diversified portfolio.

    And I can pretty much guarantee that 99% of people who invest by throwing darts or investing in a diversified set of assets/classes aren't making 1000% returns over any extended period of time.

    If you're investing in stocks in a way that it doesn't take up any of your time, your long-term return is 6-8% (assuming if you believe in the past 100 years worth of data).  

    It's really that simple, and no amount of arguing or justification is going to change that.

    Now, it's also true that 6-8% returns is better than buying real estate at market value and letting it appreciate.  So, if those are your two options, I suggest a diversified portfolio across asset classes.

    Luckily for many of us here, those aren't our only two options, and we don't have to settle for 6-8%, even with nearly passive investments into real estate.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Franklin Romine:

    I want a thicker tax return. I can visually picture my tax return, sitting on a desk ready for me to pick up from my accountant.  So thick I have to buy a new scanner to scan the return and share with my lender.  So thick I need it bound.  So thick I need a new filing cabinet.

    Owning just stocks will not create me a thicker tax return.  Owning more real estate will create me a thicker tax return.

    I have a very thick set of tax returns, and personally, I'd a much thinner one.

    I'd like mine to consist solely of single-page 1099-DIVs and K-1s...  :-)

  • Rental Property Investor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Matt R.:

    @Joshua Dawson I am sure Boston RE is great. When we start comparing specific REI locations vs individual stocks this is where it really gets fun;)

    Last 10 years.  

    Apple 5000%

    Shhhh! You are ruining peoples emotional attachment to real estate, that as another poster pointed out, is really rearing it's head. And I love how people are claiming they are different things. OK, maybe to a biased person, but in reality, net worth and income in the long run are the same thing, regardless of what asset class you invest in. Everything has risk.

    Would 100K invested in real estate in the Midwest allow one to retire living frugally? Sure. But that is not going to provide the highest returns or the most dividends/income in the long run. 

    Up until recently when I started researching the two asset classes and their returns over the very long run, and started running numbers using cash, leverage, etc., I was a staunch supporter of real estate. I now see the flaw that the numbers exposed. Whether you compare using cash or leverage, the result is the same: stocks provide a FAR higher net worth, and income, with less hassle in the long run.

    If you want to retire now and just have the bare minimum, buy some real estate in the midwest and enjoy. You can do that with probably 100K and using leverage.  I want the highest return on my money, however. That doesn't mean I'm going to sell all my real estate. I am still better off owning my primary residence since it reduces and fixes my cost of living. I'd even like to keep at least ONE rental. It is an advantage to be able to move back and forth amongst two houses, and be able to deduct, say, foundation repairs on the rental, that used to be a primary residence...plus I believe in diversifying, and fully intended to even when I planned on having most of my money in leveraged real estate. It's just now I will likely switch to mostly stocks and some real estate, bonds, cash, etc.

    Real estate allows one to have SOME money, because there is always value in the land...so long as you pay your property taxes. :-) Then you will see who really owns that land :-)

  • Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    sorry @J Scott I should have said stocks don't take up any of your time like changing toilets When I buy a stock I am hiring the supposed leading experts in the world,engineers , financial geniuses real estate experts etc I can hire Warren Buffet for example 

    But you are absolutely right stocks should take up your time thru research just like real estate,but there is always the index funds as mentioned As we all agree we are  very lucky to have both ways to make money 

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Jack B.:
    I want the highest return on my money, however. 

    And what do you think that "highest return" number is?

  • Sherman Oaks, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    10y

    I hear ya Jack. There are guys on bp who beat 99% of stock guys so no biggie. Let's say stocks are normally a cleaner and more sophisticated way to invest vs average real estate stuff. 

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    sorry @J Scott I should have said stocks don't take up any of your time like changing toilets When I buy a stock I am hiring the supposed leading experts in the world,engineers , financial geniuses real estate experts etc I can hire Warren Buffet for example 

    But you are absolutely right stocks should take up your time thru research just like real estate,but there is always the index funds as mentioned As we all agree we are  very lucky to have both ways to make money 

    First, if you do it right, you should never be spending time changing toilets...  :-)

    Anyway, as for Warren Buffett, he is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator.  He makes his money when he buys, and by the time people are following him, much of the value has already been priced in.  Not saying that following Buffet is a bad idea -- if you bought Berkshire in 1990, you would have seen about 14% returns over the past 25 years.  But, that 25 years was a very good 25 years for the market (the NYSE and Nasdaq performed above long-term averages in that time period), and it's likely that over a longer period of time, returns would be (and probably will be) lower than that.  

    So, while you'll probably do just fine following Buffett, you're not going to do much better than 10-14%.  And with an active portfolio manager, statistically you're likely to do worse than the market.  Again, you're probably looking at 6-8% long-term return for any diversified portfolio by class.

    Now, if you can't do better than 6-8% in real estate, I think it's safe to say that you should probably just put your money in a diversified portfolio.  That said, I believe that making a good bit more than 6-8% with relatively passive real estate investments is perfectly reasonable.

  • Rental Property Investor · Manteno, IL · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    10y

    I can't believe this is even a debate.

    The other picture you're missing is that you can't go buy 150k worth of stock for 10k. 

    If you already have a boat load of cash, then, no maybe buying SFH rentals is not the way to go. It requires work or PM expenses and the returns if you're paying all cash on the houses isn't as good. Something that the big funds that got into it are struggling with.

    But here's the thing. For most of, we don't have a boat load of money already. We're trying to get ahead. And I don't see how in the world you're going to get ahead with stocks. How long would it take to turn 43k lump sum into 2million worth of stock? 30 years? 50????

    There's no real leverage in buying stock. And thats what you're really missing. Ultimately, if you're buying a 150k house for 10k out of your pocket, then when that house appreciates 2 to 3%, what are you really making? You're not making 3%!!!!!!

    You're making 45%!  10k in, 4,500 in appreciation. 
    And what is your rental income? 2,500/yr? So add another 25%
    And what is your principal paydown? 1,200/yr. Add another 12%

    And, sure, when that house is paid off in 20 or 25 years and worth 300k, then it may not be the best use of 300k. But ultimately so what.....  You'll have no mortgage payments. You'll likely be making 1,200 to 1,500 a month. And you'll be gaining 9k a year in appreciation alone.

    Start multiplying that by 10 or 20 houses and I don't know that I'm going to care whether its making as much as it might in the stock market.

    Ultimately, most of us average people out here are never going to get ahead putting their money in a 401k.  Do you see any typical employees retiring when they hit 50 because their 401k is worth 5 million bucks?  NEVER!  It doesn't happen unless you're upper management or something.

    But how many investors do you know that have been doing this for 15 to 20  years that were able to quit their job and live off their rental income? A lot more of those....

    So you can quote the returns on stocks against the 3% appreciation all you want. Thats not how you calculate the real return on real estate investing though. Not if you're buying right and using leverage.

    Do that and even us little guys can amass some truly amazing increases in our net worth that a 401k isn't going to come remotely close to.

    And, to me, thats the ultimately barometer of whether investing in real estate provides a better return than stocks. Nobody retires early on their 401k alone. But there are a lot of buy/hold investors that are able to live off their rental income pretty easily. 

  • CPA · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    10y

    @J Scott is, in my opinion, the only one who nailed it.

    @Jack B. you have three inherent flaws in your analysis. Flaw #1 - you aren't comparing like-kind investments. Flaw #2 - you disregard IRR. Flaw #3 - you disregard the priceless network you are able to build with real estate.

    Flaw #1 - As J Scott already said, you aren't comparing like-kind investments. When you invest in the market, you don't get to make management decisions. When you invest in real estate, you do. This means you get to control the financing, the NOI, asset positioning (timing), taxes, the sale, etc. That power cannot be compared to a generalized 10% stock market return.

    To illustrate, I have literally earned a 1,000% return on my money this year in the business I started, excluding cost of time. I've invested around $1,000, and have been rewarded with around $11,000 in return. I'm not going to see that return in the stock market, but I'm also not going to suggest that those two investments are close to comparable. In one, I make all the decisions, in the other, I have to hope China doesn't reposition their currency.

    The second flaw is failing to calculate IRR. Instead of using IRR, you use average annual returns. As most people have already stated, in investment real estate, you won't get "average annual returns." You buy below market value, you have monthly income streams, you position the asset for tax advantages, and you sell the asset for a premium. Did you factor in tax advantages? If yes, did you talk to a real estate CPA and then factor in the tax advantages? In my experience, many people fail to consider taxes in their overall return, yet real estate is one of the most tax advantageous investment vehicles out there. I have two clients who have literally had a $0 tax liability for the past 3-5 years thanks in part to their real estate (due to their own brilliance, not mine). That's not "what they owe" that's their TOTAL TAX LIABILITY. And it's not due to their assets performing poorly, it's due to cost segregation and other tax loopholes available to real estate investors. Stocks do not provide that sort of income shelter.

    Flaw #3 - once you are in the business of real estate or investing in real estate, you tend to meet and network with very successful people. In the past two years, I have met two guys in the Midwest who own (not control, own) millions of dollars worth of apartment buildings. I have connected with investors in South Korea and Hong Kong. I have met land developers, flippers, regular buy/hold folks, syndicators who fly their brokers on private jets, vacation real estate pros, etc etc. These people are amazing and you can learn something from each and every one of them.

    On the other hand, prior to indulging in real estate I studied the stock market religiously. It was, in my mind, the quickest way to wealth. In the years that I poured hundreds, maybe thousands of hours into understanding the markets, derivatives, futures, everything, I met two people. One was a finance professor and the other was a derivatives trader on Wall St. who had a life I couldn't imagine myself living.

    Tough to quantify the relationships you build in real estate vs. the stock market, but I'd almost guarantee that my real estate network will add more to my network over my lifetime than any stock market network would.

  • Rental Property Investor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Brandon Hall:

    @J Scott is, in my opinion, the only one who nailed it.

    @Jack B. you have three inherent flaws in your analysis. Flaw #1 - you aren't comparing like-kind investments. Flaw #2 - you disregard IRR. Flaw #3 - you disregard the priceless network you are able to build with real estate.

    Flaw #1 - As J Scott already said, you aren't comparing like-kind investments. When you invest in the market, you don't get to make management decisions. When you invest in real estate, you do. This means you get to control the financing, the NOI, asset positioning (timing), taxes, the sale, etc. That power cannot be compared to a generalized 10% stock market return.

    To illustrate, I have literally earned a 1,000% return on my money this year in the business I started, excluding cost of time. I've invested around $1,000, and have been rewarded with around $11,000 in return. I'm not going to see that return in the stock market, but I'm also not going to suggest that those two investments are close to comparable. In one, I make all the decisions, in the other, I have to hope China doesn't reposition their currency.

    The second flaw is failing to calculate IRR. Instead of using IRR, you use average annual returns. As most people have already stated, in investment real estate, you won't get "average annual returns." You buy below market value, you have monthly income streams, you position the asset for tax advantages, and you sell the asset for a premium. Did you factor in tax advantages? If yes, did you talk to a real estate CPA and then factor in the tax advantages? In my experience, many people fail to consider taxes in their overall return, yet real estate is one of the most tax advantageous investment vehicles out there. I have two clients who have literally had a $0 tax liability for the past 3-5 years thanks in part to their real estate (due to their own brilliance, not mine). That's not "what they owe" that's their TOTAL TAX LIABILITY. And it's not due to their assets performing poorly, it's due to cost segregation and other tax loopholes available to real estate investors. Stocks do not provide that sort of income shelter.

    Flaw #3 - once you are in the business of real estate or investing in real estate, you tend to meet and network with very successful people. In the past two years, I have met two guys in the Midwest who own (not control, own) millions of dollars worth of apartment buildings. I have connected with investors in South Korea and Hong Kong. I have met land developers, flippers, regular buy/hold folks, syndicators who fly their brokers on private jets, vacation real estate pros, etc etc. These people are amazing and you can learn something from each and every one of them.

    On the other hand, prior to indulging in real estate I studied the stock market religiously. It was, in my mind, the quickest way to wealth. In the years that I poured hundreds, maybe thousands of hours into understanding the markets, derivatives, futures, everything, I met two people. One was a finance professor and the other was a derivatives trader on Wall St. who had a life I couldn't imagine myself living.

    Tough to quantify the relationships you build in real estate vs. the stock market, but I'd almost guarantee that my real estate network will add more to my network over my lifetime than any stock market network would.

    Those aren't flaws at all Brandon, they are your subjective opinions of flaws. Yes, I factored in tax benefits, I have owned multiple rental properties for years and know the tax laws better than my CPA did, so now I do my taxes myself in less time, with a bigger refund.

    At the end of the day, your counter argument is purely subjective. None of the three points are logical arguments at all. Furthermore, claims about 1,000% returns in real estate in one year are unverifiable, and frankly, unbelievable, sorry. My numbers are easily verifiable as they are from countless studies, and very believable. Yours are not.  Actually, over the long run, real estate appreciates .8%, far less than I used in my calculations.

    Furthermore, your returns in real estate will be higher than stocks in the SHORT term, but lower in the LONG term. The longer you hold RE, the lower your return becomes.

    Flaw 1 in your opinion is that I get to make management decisions? lol, OK. Whatever makes you feel better about a poor investment when you look at hard numbers. Say, are any of those management decisions whether to settle or fight a lawsuit? Any of them to clean a meth lab?

    Flaw 2 in your opinion, is IRR. IRR actually measures the ideal holding period. And yes, average returns do matter, because the reality is that is the amount of money you have over the long run.

    Flaw 3 in your opinion, is networking. Whoopty doo? I'll take millions of dollars and a fat dividend that beats real estate over a 'network'.

    You're REALLY reaching when you try to come up with "network" and "I manage" as arguments for why real estate is so great.And the longer you hold real estate, the lower your returns. You also have to factor in the opportunity cost that exist investing into such a low appreciating asset. Great, you get cash flow. Stocks have dividends too.

    And to say that you can buy real estate below value. Great, you can do that with stocks as well. Ever heard of a guy named Warren Buffett? While he is the most prominent investor in stocks, like Trump may be for real estate, there are others like him. Oh, by the way, who has a higher net worth? Trump or Buffett? Buffett started with 100K. Trump inherited 200 MILLION from his dad. Buffett out earns him by so much, it is laughable.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.