Property vs stocks

Both are a jacuzzi

It really depends on how you do it.

Leveraged property does get better returns but with more volatility. And the returns are spendable cash, not simple paper gains

OTOH, an index fund is simpler and taxes are lower because the cash flow is very small. And there's no debt associated with it.

So what do you want it to look like?

>>1764697
The problem is, there is no such thing as an average stock and an average rental property. And since they don't exist, it's rather pointless to compare them.

If you are extremely luck at stock picking you'll outperform everything else, but at a very high risk. If your average returns come close to the market average (which is alredy more than most mutual funds can claim) the case is much less clear-cut.

The same way if you are extremely lucky at picking the future developmental hotspots your properties can easily outperform the stock market.
A close-to-average property can, but doesn't have to.

Both investments in theory (!) should be inflation-proof. Both can catastrophically fail or absolutely go through the roof. I guess what remains are differences in their nature: The stock market is much more volatile while real estate is usually a lot more stable. The stock market will have a larger proportion of your gains be in value increases (which only become an actual profit once you sell the stock) while your rental property will have more gains regularly paid out (the monthy rent). The stock market is very liquid and transactions are fast, while the real estate market is the opposite (which can matter if you need to liquidate your assets in a hurry). On the other hand, using real estate as collateral generally gives you more favourable conditions than using securites as collateral, which means real estate provides better leverage. Finally, stock profits are subject to capital gains and dividend taxes, while real estate profits are usually subject to normal income tax.

>managed?
Run the numbers for your specific investment. Personally I manage my real estate myself. I don't want 2-3 months of rent out of every year to go to someone else. Having the property managed completely will substantially lower your ROI. Dealing with all the local bylaws, rent control, financials, tax reporting and shitty tennants is challanging at first, but you get used to it.

>>1764748

truth.

stocks are much more of a gamble.

in terms of du diligence, RE will pay your efforts off with much much much less risk.

dont use property mgmt company until u understand the business yourself.

>>1764778
depends, invest in widely diversified stocks for a long enough term and they will outperform realestate consistently which only yields above inflation like 1% on average.

>>1764697
Fuuuuuuug stocks.

Property manager only after u manage a few yourself to learn the ropes.

>>1764778
Real estate is better because it's been the proven method since the begining of time to generate wealth. Also, if you learn to property manage, that is a valuable skill that is worth a lot of money. It's a win/win

>>1764697
There's actually 64 markets of making money, but yeah sure let's focus on just the 2.

But wait no that would be bad advice. There's a third option, much more neutral and which makes money for you!

Beehive keeping, anon. Get into bees. You have hundreds of bees working for you, making you honey. It's passive income at it's finest.

>>1764744
you forgot to add in the depreciation of the home...

You only pay tax if you sell the house, or if it has depreciated to 0.

>>1764697
best thing about stocks over real estate, is you can literally move any where in the world at a moment's notice...

no transaction cost (realtor/escrow), no holding cost (tax), no lawsuits (tenants/neighbors)

landlords say the biggest problems with RE is TTT = tenants, toilets and time

Why not both?
REITs

>>1767120
Ah that's true. Real estate is pretty cool.

>>1767129
You're not tied down if you use a management company. I have quite a few doors at this point and I was able to move pretty easily.