Owning REIT vs owning real estate - which has a better hypothetical ROI?
You've already hit on the big difference. If you buy a property, you've made a big commitment, for better or worse.  If you bought wisely, you'll be very happy.  If not, you could go bankrupt. An REIT spreads out the risk, but the reward isn't as great. There's less barrier to entry in buying shares of an REIT than there is in buying an investment property:  money, time, maintenance. The answer for you depends on what level of effort you want to put into your investment.  If you are all ready to pick up an investment property, make the down payment, get appraisal and inspection, clean up the house, and fill it with tenants, then go for it.  Otherwise, research some REITs and buy some shares. (Disclaimer:  I have a rental property that's doing pretty well now.) REIT's usually invest in larger properties (apartment complexes), individuals usually invest in small properties (single units, duplexes, fourplexes, etc). REIT's also invest in a lot of commercial properties - malls, commercial and business office buildings, etc. These are very different markets. Not to mention the risk spread, geographical spread, research, management and maintenance that someone has to do for REIT and it comes out of the earnings (while your own rentals you can manage yourself, if you want), etc. REIT is to property as Mutual Fund is to stock.  In others words, a REIT spreads your risk out over a greater number of properties, making the return safer, at the expense of both upside and downside risk. On average, both would average out to be the same. That said, you have a much wider range of outcomes when investing in a single property. As with stocks, over the long haul, unless you think you can somehow beat the market, divirsification is usually considered the better move.  Technically, your ROI is the same, but your beta is much better in a REIT. Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world?  Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions.  If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.
Being able to make small investments in very valuable real estate could make this a game changer. I want to invest in a skyscraper in the UAE, but I only have $10k. I can just use REAL tokens to buy a percentage of that property. At least, that's the way I understand this to work. If you can generate a higher ROI by renting than by cashing out and investing, then you should rent it out. Please consider your risk tolerance as well. It's always a personal decision whether to assume higher risk for a higher return. So your accountant certainly knows much more than I do about Israeli tax law and its interactions with US tax law, which is zero.  I'm going to look at this problem from the investment perspective which I hope to convince you is the most important place to start. Then you can adjust for interactions between the Isreali and US tax codes. Even if the tax breaks are exceptional, it would be hard to recommend buying real estate as an investment in the 7-10 year time frame.  Especially if this real estate is in the US.  Open/Closing fees, mortgage fees, risk of property devaluation, bad-renters, acts of god, insurance costs and tax complications make short to medium term investments in real estate a particularly risky way to invest.  Buying a local apartment and renting is somewhat more reasonable as you don't have to worry about the currency conversion and you can do a lot more research in your local environment and keep a closer eye on the property, it is  still this a pretty concentrated risk. Saving and investing using tax-advantaged accounts is generally considered a great way to build toward a down payment in the medium term.  A mixture of mostly local bonds with some local and foreign stocks and more and more cash as it gets close to purchase time is generally what is recommended when saving for a home.  This mixture is relatively safe and will tend to grow steadily without the concentrated risk of a real estate investment.  PFIC rules are complicated and certainly worth taking some time to understand, but owning real estate especially in a foreign country seems much more complicated and certainly riskier. There may be some rule that makes investing in REITs much better than normal stocks in these particular accounts though I would be surprised if that were the case.  It is generally not true for people under just he US tax code. So while option (1) may not be the absolute best from a tax perspective it would certainly be my guess as the most likely to succeed. "VNQ only holds ~16% residential REITs. The rest are industrial, office, retail (e.g. shopping malls), specialized (hotels perhaps?) etc.  Thus, VNQ isn't as correlated towards housing as you might have assumed just based on it being about ""real estate."" Second of all, if by ""housing"" you mean that actual houses have gone up appreciably, then you ought to realize that residential REITs seldom hold actual houses. The residential units held tend primarily to be rental apartments. There is a relationship in prices, but not direct." yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate.  yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees.   the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates.  in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions. Both of these terms do refer to your profit; they're just different ways of evaluating it. First, your definition of capitalization rate is flipped.  As explained here, it should be: On the other hand, as explained here: So cap rate is like a reverse unit cost approach to comparing two investments.  If house A costs $1M and you'll make $50K (profit) from it yearly, and house B costs $1.33M and you'll make $65K (profit) from it yearly, then you can compute cap rates to see that A is a more efficient investment from the point of view of income vs. amount-of-money-you-have-stuck-in-this-investment-and-unavailable-for-use-elsewhere. Profit margin, on the other hand, cares more about your ongoing expenses than about your total investment.  If it costs less to maintain property B than it does to maintain property A, then you could have something like: So B is a more efficient investment from the point of view of the fraction of your revenue you actually get to keep each year. Certainly you could think of the property's value as an opportunity cost and factor that into the net profit margin equation to get a more robust estimate of exactly how efficient your investment is.  You can keep piling more factors into the equation until you've accounted for every possible facet of your investment.  This is what accountants and economists spend their days doing. :-) "I think the claim is that you shouldn't buy a house expecting it to increase in value as you would a stock portfolio. OTOH if you are looking at it from the stand point of ""I need housing, mortgage payments and rent are comparable and I build equity if I buy a house rather then rent"" that's potentiality a very different situation (that I'm not qualified to judge)." you are discounting the cash used, the discount rate for cash should be whatever you determine is your risk premium over the risk free rate not the equity growth rate. if equity growth rate is above your determined required return the equity investment is wealth destroying and if it is above that then it is wealth increasing.   The difficulty I see is that the scenario is all wrong, what you are really after is a rent vs buy decision. Do I take this money and rent a place or do I buy a house? In either case you could invest the remainder after paying your rent/mortgage in the equity market no?  So what really matters is the difference in cost between renting and buying.   Let  (EGR)=equity growth rate  Rent = rent M = Mortgage payment  I = income  HA =  home value appreciation  Now the question is is renting or buying a better decision two scenarios, renting first  PMT =(I - rent)  I/y = (EGR)  N =Time horizon in years  FV= Gain from cf left after paying rent    then discount to present day at your required rate of return to find present value  now scenario for buying, this is more complicated because you are investing two different cf streams at different rates and have to calculate both and add them together.  1) CF 1 the mortgage payments buy you equity in the house which appreciates (hopefully) but can be extremely volatile. This is the cf stream scenario one doesnt have, when renting the rent payments poof disappear forever and you earn nothing on them 2) The income left after mortgage payment which can be invested at the market rate measured the same way as above. **This is extremely simplistic and doesnt take into account expected maintenance, property taxes and other costs intrinsic to the investment. It also doesnt take into account the lost down payment setting you well behind the renter.   TL DR: It is complicated but you determine the required return(discount rate) based on the perceived risk of the investment and your particular views  and it doesnt matter what expected growth rates are since any investment with an expected growth rate below your required rate is wealth destroying since you are paying for something which returns cash flows too small for its risk level. If you use growth rates as discount rates then all your investments will net to zero "You mention: High rent places are usually also high   property value places. Given the tax   incentives, it seems like a good long   term idea to grab a house, so if we   assume you have the option of working   and buying a house in a high CoL or a   low CoL city, I think you'd prefer the   high cost. Because essentially, after   30 years, you'd have a million dollar   house vs a quarter million dollar   house. You've captured three quarters   of a million dollars in rent, given my   napkin math hypothetical. I think you're forgetting about some of the associated costs with ""owning"" a home, including:" I just read this: Housing and inflation  Adjusted for inflation the price of a house has increased a miniscule amount. A better investment would be an ETF that buys REIT stocks. You would be investing in real estate but can cash in and walk away at any time.  Here is a list of mREITs: Stockchart of REITs Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends.   It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent.  Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in.  If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between.  As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term.  To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time.  Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view. Colloquially, there's no difference except for the level of risk (which is an estimate anyway). Classically, investment is creating wealth through improvement or production.  Purchasing a house with the intent to renovate and sell it for a profit would be an investment, as the house is worth more when you sell than when you bought it. Speculation, on the other hand, is when you hope to make a profit through changes in the market itself.  Purchasing a house, letting it sit for 6 months, and selling it for a profit would be speculation. "is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index.  Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them.  Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these ""duds"". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now.  But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month.  No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate.  Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion.  Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income.  If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years.  The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers.  (Amongst many other possible measures.)  They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years.  Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example.  There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old.  Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses.   Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better.  I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments.  Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former.  In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns.  Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio.  Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though." Our two rentals have yielded 8.5% over the past two years (averaged). That is net, after taxes, maintenance, management, vacancy, insurance, interest. I am only interested in cash flow - expenses / original investment. If you aren't achieving at least 4.5-5% net on your original investment you probably could invest elsewhere and earn a better return on a similar risk profile. "No, but you can better see who is making that profit possible.  I've worked for companies where some divisions were making a profit according to their books. But when you take into account the resources they were consuming, especially IT, they were really operating at a loss.  In the case of IT I don't think its beneficial to ""make a profit"", but they should at least charge the other departments their cost just so you can see how those other departments are impacting the company as a whole."