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.
I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business.  As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too!  Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time.  The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds.  You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds.  Why?  Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return.  Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds.   A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier.  Why?  Because sometimes bonds fall.  And when they do, stocks generally gain.  And vice versa.  Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds.   Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%?  No.  If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%.  The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well.  So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3.   If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents.  Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination.  But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety.   At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund.  This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income.  I recommend making it equal to six months of your income.  The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses.  Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two.   Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years?  At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no.  But the standard is the five year time frame.  If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no.  If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses.  Less than five years, the reverse is true.  So you should probably rent now.   You can max out your 401k and IRA now.  Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven.  And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down.  The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend.   Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house.  I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  A REIT will tend to track real estate.  Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety.  It fell in value?  Houses are probably cheap.  Houses increasing in price rapidly?  A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds.  You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty. Important to take note that Buffett is not directly investing in real estate. He bought a lot of stock in a real estate company that owns a lot of real estate (a REIT). Buffett typically buys stocks in companies that have good fundamentals in industries where he sees potential for growth. So indirectly he is betting on real estate, but holding stock in a REIT is much different than owning properties. REIT's are a different beast than your normal corporate stock (such as $AAPL).  Here is a good article to get you started.  From there you can do some more research into what you think you will need to truly evaluate an REIT. How To Assess A Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)  Excerpt: When evaluating REITs, you will get a clearer picture by looking at funds from operations (FFO) rather than looking at net income. If you are seriously considering the investment, try to calculate adjusted funds from operations (AFFO), which deducts the likely expenditures necessary to maintain the real estate portfolio. AFFO is also a good measure of the REIT's dividend-paying capacity. Finally, the ratio price-to-AFFO and the AFFO yield (AFFO/price) are tools for analyzing an REIT: look for a reasonable multiple combined with good prospects for growth in the underlying AFFO. Good luck! "No magic answers here. Housing is a market, and the conditions in each local market vary. I think impact on cash flow is the best way to evaluate housing prices. In general, I consider a ""cheap"" home to cost 20% or less of your income, ""affordable"" between 20-30% and ""not affordable"" over 30%. When you start comparing rent vs. buy, there are other factors that you need to think about: Renting is an easy transaction. You're comparing prices in  a market that is usually pretty stable, and your risk and liability is low. The ""cost"" of the low risk is that you have virtually no prospects of recouping any value out of the cash that you are laying out for your home. Buying is more complex. You're buying a house, building equity and probably making money due to appreciation. You need to be vigilant about expenses and circumstances that affect the value of your home as an investment. If you live in a high-tax state like New York, an extra $1,200 in property taxes saps over $16,000 of buying (borrowing) power from a future purchaser of your home. If your HOA or condo association is run by a pack of idiots, you're going to end up paying through the nose for their mistakes. Another consideration is your tastes. If you tend to live above your means, you're not going to be able to afford necessary maintenance on the house that you paid too much for." Your post seems to read as if you want to invest only in real estate rental properties as a start because they will be a reliable investment guaranteed to generate profits that you will be plowing back into buying even more rental properties, but you are willing to consider (possibly in later years) other forms of investment (in real estate) that will not require active  participation in the management of the rental properties. While many participants here do own rental real estate and even manage it entirely, for most people, that is only a small part of their investment portfolio, and I suspect that hardly any will recommend real estate as the only investment the way you seem to want to do. Also, you might want to look more closely at the realities of rental real estate  operations before jumping in. Things are not necessarily as rosy as they appear to you now.  Not all your units will be rented all the time, and the rental income might not always be enough to cover the mortgage payments and the property taxes and the insurance payments and the repairs and maintenance and ... Depreciation of the property is another matter that you might not have thought about. That being said, you can invest in real estate through real estate investment trusts (REITs) or through limited partnerships where you have only a passive role.  There are even mutual funds that invest in REITs or in REIT indexes. "So either scenario has about $10K upfront costs (either realtor/selling expenses or fixing up for rental). Furthermore, I'm sure that the buyers would want you to fix all these things anyway, or reduce the price accordingly, but let's ignore this. Let's also ignore the remaining mortgage, since it looks like you can comfortably pay it off. Assuming 10% property management and 10% average vacancy (check your market), and rental price at $1000 - you end up with these numbers: I took very conservative estimates both on the rent (lower than you expect) and the maintenance expense (although on average over the years ,since you need to have some reserves, this is probably quite reasonable). You end up with 2.7% ROI, which is not a lot for a rental. The rule of thumb your wife mentioned (1% of cash equity) is indeed usually for ROI of leveraged rental purchase. However, if rental prices in your area are rising, as it sounds like they are, you may end up there quite soon anyway. The downside is that the money is locked in. If you're confident in your ability to rent and are not loosing the tax benefit of selling since it sounds like you've not appreciated, you may take out some cash through a cash-out refi. To keep cash-flow near-0, you need to cash out so that the payments would be at or less than the $3200/year (i.e.: $266/month). That would make about $50K at 30/yr fixed 5% loan. What's best is up to you to decide, of course. Check whether ""you can always sell"" holds for you. I.e.: how stable is the market, what happens if one or two large employers disappear, etc." No. This logic is dangerous.  The apples to apples comparison between renting and buying should be between similar living arrangements. One can't (legitimately) compare living in a 600 sq ft studio to a 3500 sq ft house.  With the proposal you offer, one should get the largest mortgage they qualify for, but that can result in a house far too big for their needs. Borrowing to buy just what you need makes sense. Borrowing to buy a house with rooms you may never visit, not a great idea.  By the way, do the numbers. The 30 year rate is 4%. You'd need a $250,000 mortgage to get $10,000 in interest the first year, that's a $312,000 house given an 80% loan. On a median income, do you think it makes sense to buy a house twice the US median?  Last, a portion of the tax savings is 'lost' to the fact that you have a standard deduction of nearly $6,000 in 2012. So that huge mortgage gets you an extra $4000 in write-off, and $600 back in taxes.  Don't ever let the Tax Tail wag the Investing Dog, or in this case the House Dog.  Edit - the investment return on real estate is a hot topic. I think it's fair to say that long term one must include the rental value of the house in calculating returns. In the case of buying of way-too-big house, you are not getting the return, it's the same as renting a four bedroom, but leaving three empty.  If I can go on a bit - I own a rental, it's worth $200K and after condo fee and property tax, I get $10K/yr. A 5% return, plus whatever appreciation. Now, if I lived there, I'd correctly claim that part of my return is the rental value, the rent I don't pay elsewhere, so the return to me is the potential growth as well as saved rent. But if the condo rents for $1200, and I'd otherwise live in a $600 apartment with less space, the return to me is lost. In my personal case, in fact, I bought a too big house. Not too big for our paycheck, the cost and therefore the mortgage were well below what the bank qualified us for. Too big for the need. I paid for two rooms we really don't use.