Why do some people say a house “not an investment”?
The below assessment is for primary residences as opposed to income properties. The truth is that with the exception of a housing bubble, the value of a house might outpace inflation by one or two percent.  According to the US Census, the price of a new home per square foot only went up 4.42% between 1963 and 2008, where as inflation was 4.4%.  Since home sizes increased, the price of a new home overall outpaced inflation by 1% at 5.4% (source).  According to Case-Shiller, inflation adjusted prices increased a measly .4% from 1890-2004 (see graph here). On the other hand your down payment money and the interest towards owning that home might be in a mutual fund earning you north of eight percent.  If you don't put down enough of a down payment to avoid PMI, you'll be literally throwing away money to get yourself in a home that could also be making money. Upgrades to your home that increase its value - unless you have crazy do-it-yourself skills and get good deals on the materials - usually don't return 100% on an investment.  The best tend to be around 80%. On top of the fact that your money is going towards an asset that isn't giving you much of a return, a house has costs that a rental simply doesn't have (or rather, it does have them, but they are wrapped into your rent) - closing costs as a buyer, realtor fees and closing costs as a seller, maintenance costs, and constantly escalating property taxes are examples of things that renters deal with only in an indirect sense. NYT columnist David Leonhart says all this more eloquently than I ever could in: There's an interactive calculator at the NYT that helps you apply Leonhart's criteria to your own area. None of this is to say that home ownership is a bad decision for all people at all times.  I'm looking to buy myself, but I'm not buying as an investment.  For example, I would never think that it was OK to stop funding my retirement because my house will eventually fund it for me.  Instead I'm buying because home ownership brings other values than money that a rental apartment would never give me and a rental home would cost more than the same home purchase (given 10 years). When I purchased my house I struggled with this same idea.  I felt sick to my stomach signing a contract stating how much money I now owe a bank.  However, the lawyer I was using put it in terms that eased the nausea a little (I still hate owing that much money - but it's a little more palatable).   His words, paraphrased: At the end of the day, you have to have a place to stay.  Your mortgage payment is replacing your rent except in this case, you're paying yourself instead of someone else.  You lose a little flexibility in being able to up and move with relative ease.  However, you've lived in apartments, you know that rent almost only goes up.  Your mortgage will not.   He wrote out some numbers and basically showed that everything evened out except mortgage payments will give you property as opposed to paying for someone else's property. To answer your question though - others have already stated - you'll get a better return in the stock market (usually).  But unless you're really really bad at real estate evaluation - you should make some money off your house when you decide to sell. With an investment, you tend to buy it for a very specific purpose, namely to make you some money. Either via appreciation (ie, it hopefully increases value after you take all the fees and associated costs into account, you sell the investment, realise the gains) or via a steady cashflow that, after you subtracted your costs, leaves you with a profit. Your primary residence is a roof over your head and first and foremost has the function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. It might go up in value, which is somewhat nice, but that's not its main purpose and for as long as you live in the house, you cannot realise the increase in value as you probably don't want to sell it. Of course the remortgage crowd would suggest that you can increase the size of the mortgage (aka the 'home atm') but (a) we all know how that movie ended and (b) you'd have to factor in the additional interest in your P&L calculation. You can also buy real estate as a pure investment, ie with the only objective being that you plan to make money on this. Normally you'd buy a house or an apartment with a view of renting it out and try to increase your wealth both due to the asset's appreciation (hopefully) and the rent, which in this scenario should cover the mortgage, all expenses and still leave you with a bit of profit. All that said, I've never heard someone use the reasoning you describe as a reason not to buy a house and stay in an apartment - if you need a bigger place for your family and can afford to buy something bigger, that falls under the shelter provision and not under the investment. "A house is a funny kind of investment. Normally when you invest, you do it to make money. The return on a house, though, isn't principally real money, it's the imputed rent - money that you would have needed to pay to rent the house. The thing about this imputed rent is that you consume it right away. Getting a bigger house and putting more money into it doesn't save you any money, it's just a way to consume more ""house"" - so, unlike regular investing, it's not really responsible and doesn't contribute to your financial well-being." Your house is not an asset, it is a liability. Assets feed you. Liabilites eat you. Robert Kiyosaki From a cash flow perspective your primary residence (ie your house) is an investment but it is not an asset. If you add up all the income your primary residence generates and subtract all the expenses it incurs, you will see why investment gurus claim this. Perform the same calculations for a rental property and you're more likely to find it has a positive cash flow. If it has a negative cash flow, it's not an asset either; it's a liability. A rental property with a negative cash flow is still an investment, but cash flow gurus will tell you it's a bad investment. While it is possible that your house may increase in value and you may be able to sell it for more than you paid, will you be able to sell it for more than all of the expenses incurred while living there? If so, you have an asset.  Some people will purchase a home in need of repair, live in it and upgrade it, sell it for profit exceeding all expenses, and repeat. These people are flipping houses and generating capital gains based on their own hard work. In this instance a person's primary residence can be an asset. How much of an asset is calculated when the renovated house is sold. "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)." "One reason I have heard (beside to keep you paying rent) is the cost of maintenance and improvements.  If you hire someone else to do all the work for you, then it may very well be the case, though it is not as bad as a car. Many factors come into play:   If you are lucky, you may end up with a lot that is worth more than the house on it in a few decades' time. Personally, I feel that renting is sometimes better than owning depending on the local market.  That said, when you own a home, it is yours.  You do have to weigh in such factors as being tied down to a certain location to some extent.  However, only the police can barge in -- under certain circumstances -- where as a landlord can come in whenever they feel like, given proper notice or an ""emergency.""  Not to mention that if someone slams a door so hard that it reverberates through the entire place, you can actually deal with it. The point of this last bit is the question of home ownership vs renting is rather subjective.  Objectively, the costs associated with home ownership are the drags that may make it a bad investment.  However, it is not like car ownership, which is quite honestly rarely an invesment." "You're hearing alot of talk about housing (and by implication property) not being an investment today because on the downside of a market, the conventional wisdom is to be negative about buying things that have lost value. Just as it was dumb to listen to your coworker about hot .Com IPOs in 1999, it's dumb to listen to the real estate naysayers now. Here's another question along a similar vein: Were stocks a good investment in the spring of 2009?  The conventional wisdom said: ""No, stocks are scary! Buy T-Bills or Gold Bullion!"". The people who made money said: ""Wait a second, Goldman Sachs is down like 75%? IBM is down like 30%, are they going anywhere? Time to buy."" The wrong house is a poor investment in any economy. Buying a house in Detriot in 1970 was not a good move. Buying a house that needs $50k in work, not a good move. Buying a condo with a bankrupt HOA in Florida is not a good idea. But a good house that is well cared for is a great investment.  I'm living in a house right now that is 80 years old, well maintained and affordable on a single income. A similar home a few blocks away sold in May for the same price as we paid in 2006. I'm paying about 20% less than I would for an apartment, and we'll think about moving in 2016 or 2017, by which time I'll probably have put $30-50k into the house. (Roof, kitchen, exterior painting, minor renovation)" "I invested in single family homes and made ok.  Houses can be an investment. (though the OP seems to equate ""house"" with primary residence)   Just like any other investment buying houses has risks.   I would not treat your primary residence or a vacation  home as an investment.  That is asking for trouble, but for many many years it was safe to assume that you would make a good return on it, and many people did.   If you evaluate the numbers for purchase price, rental market, etc and find that rentals or flipping is worth your exposure then by all means, do it.  But treating your primary residence as an investment apparently is what that comment means. Just like the stock market, many people have gotten wealthy on homes and there are lots of people who lost their shirts." "There's an old saying:  ""Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance."" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment.  It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value.  Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone.  They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision.  There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too."
"You want to be an analyst? Do you mean.. Equity research analyst? Investment banking analyst? Financial analyst? Etc...  The CFA alone isn't going to help you. I don't know why people on this board are obsessed with it. It's something you do while you are in school or once you get a job and looking to move to VP/MD level, not while you're job searching. Relevant experience &gt; CFA, all day every day  There's always some guy who says ""*BECAUSE* of my CFA candidacy...."", well you're in the minority." It's really not possible to know what your best investment strategy is without knowing more about you, which isn't the place of a site like this. However I'll make some general comments about insurance policies as savings. Insurance policies are extremely inflexible. They lay down specific payments, and specific returns that you will get back. However typically if you don't follow the shcedule of payments laid down, you will lose almost all the benefit of the investment. Since you say you are a beginner, I'll assume you are young too. Maybe in a few years you will want to buy a house, or a nice car, or get married, or put money into some other investment opportunity. If you are committed to making  insurance policy payments you will have less available for the other things you want to do. Related to this is the 'estimated returns'. You say the 'nonguaranteed bonus is around 3.75%-5.25%'. But because an insurance policy locks you in, if it turns out that it's the low end of that - or worse - you can't get out, even if other investments are outperforming it. &gt;But gold does have other uses. It is a metal that's used for jewelry, it has decorative value. Exchanging something for gold is like a caveman giving you a stone ax if you do some cave paintings for him.  That's not quite the point. I was addressing a specific problem. I'm aware that it's more complex, hence my disclaimer of simplicity.   But to address your point, not everyone is a goldsmith. Imagine if the medium was saltpeter. Of course someone's going to use it to make explosives, but most people are not in that line of work. To most people, gold has no use except as a store of value. Why is an identically designed plastic necklace so much cheaper than a gold one? Because as many uses as it has, plastic doesn't store value (some say intrinsically, I say artificially) the way gold does.  &gt;because they lack the manufacturing capacity to do so.   Like I said, they can invest in factory expansion or new factory construction. To stick to the metaphor, they need to plant more apple trees. There may not be a million apples available, but if that's what the demand is -and why else would anyone offer a million apples- that's the potential market size (especially if the supply exists in China). So the farmer ought to increase his yield, thereby lowering his average cost to produce an apple. If he knows he can only plant 100 apple trees, he's not going to promise a million apples when asking for a loan to expand his orchard.  EDIT:  &gt;with their nominal value that people agreed upon.  The same phenomenon occurs in bullion currency. "My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment.  There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world.  You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this:  Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000.  What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are...  Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to ""What would the property give you?"" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both?  If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value.  If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance.  IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump." "People have lost money buying houses in good to great neighborhoods.  It's a pretty large red flag that you state this so clearly ""the neighborhood is pretty bad."" I'd rather buy a bad house in a great neighborhood, and spend my weekends fixing it up, turning sweat equity into real equity. A two year bet? I'd pass.  Close to the school, high demand area, and my answer might change.  (And, ""welcome, stranger"")" Lets do the math, using your numbers. We start off with $100K, a desire to buy a house and invest, and 30 years to do it.  Scenario #1 We buy a house for $100K mortgage at 5% interest over 30 years. Monthly payment ends up being $536.82/month. We then take the $100K we still have and invest it in stocks, earning an average of 9% annually and paying 15% taxes.  Scenario #2 We buy a house for our $100K cash, and then, every month, we invest the $536.82 we would have paid for the mortgage. Again, investments make 9% annually long term, and we pay 15% taxes.  How would it look in 30 years?  Scenario #1 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $912,895 in investments Scenario #2 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $712,745 in investments Conclusion: NOT paying off your mortgage early results in an additional $200,120 in networth after 30 years. That's 28% more. Therefore, not paying off your mortgage is the superior scenario.  Caveats/Notes/Things to consider Play with the numbers yourself: "Real Estate has historically been the most sound investment of all times. Not only does property consistant increase in value (which is what you want every investment to do), it does so at the highest rate with the lowest risk. Most return on investment (like a stock in the market) the potential rate of gain is proportionat to the potential loss. The more secure an investment, the lower the potential gain. But, with Real Estate, property typically doubles in value every 10 years. Our overall R.E. economy is on an upward turn, recovering from a time  where values tanked. to jump in now, is probably better than waiting for any amount of time, be it 1 month, or 1 year. You concern about being ""tied in"" to this investment is a valid concern, however, since the market is in an upward turn, you should be more and more able to turn around and sell it later on. The best thing that you could potentially do would be to invest in a rental property where your cost of investment (your mortgage note) is paid by the renters. However, being a landlord is always a risky business (hence, the higher rate of return, which considering your investment is ultimately zero, the return rate is huge :-)   The trick would be to take the reters payments to you and keep it in an account that you use to pay for any repairs, upgrades, or marketing in between when the unit is vacant. But, with your parents losing their house, this may not be possible - unless you take their home and then keep the living arrangments the same as they are now. One possibility to help you get your foot in the door of being a property owner (not necessarily ""investor"") and help your parents keep their house (if that is what they would like to do) is re-finance with them... if you can't afford the entire mortgage, but they are capable of filling the gap between what you can afford and what their property costs, then you become partnered with them, and when/if their circumstances change, they can always buy you out." Real estate is a lousy investment because: Renting a home and buying a home, all else being equal, are pretty similar in costs in the long term (if you can force yourself to invest the would-be down payment). So, buy a home if you want to enjoy the benefits of home ownership. Buy a home if you need to hedge against rising housing prices (e.g. you're on a fixed income and couldn't cope if rent increased a bunch when the economy heated up). Maybe buy a home if you're in a high tax bracket to save yourself from being taxed on your imputed rent, if it works out that way (consult your financial advisor). But don't consider it a really great investment vehicle. Returns are average and the risk profile isn't that attractive.