Originally posted by @Peter Sanchez :
This is a stupid argument because they are different. One uses leverage and the other doesn't. The unlevered returns on real estate over the past hundred years have been about 2-3% per year. (slightly more than inflation). The stock market averages about 10% a year. If you could put 3% down on stocks, your returns would be incredible, but the problem is that if stocks go down you have to put up more cash. The same is not true for real estate so you can ride out the ups and downs without going broke.
My first condo that I bought, the previous owner had owned it for 25 years and it appreciated about 1.9% a year compounded. I bought it in 2000 and sold it in 2003 and tripled my money (a compounded return of 54% per year if it was unlevered, but much more since I only put 10% down). So a lot of the super-normal returns are based on timing, not leverage.
Like I said, it's totally different. It's like saying, which would win in a fight, a lion or a shark?
I laughed when I read this.
1 - You can't just arbitrarily take out the leveraging of REI. It's one of the things that makes it so powerful.
2 - You can't compare anything using averages...especially averages over 100 year periods. Who invests for 100 years?...and averages are misleading at best. An average is based on good and bad investments. If you analyze RE correctly, you can avoid the bad investments, and if you find yourself in a bad investment, you can bail out and reinvest in a different investment.
3 - You have much greater control over your REI, where you have absolutely no control over anything in the Stock Market...other then getting in or out.
4 - Percentages lie, when applied to REI