How can I compare the risk of different investing opportunities?
Let us consider the risks in the investment opportunities: Now, what are the returns in each of the investment: What are the alternatives to these investments, then? "First of all, setting some basics: What is a sound way to measure the risk of each investment in order to compare them with each other ? There is no single way that can be used across all asset classes / risks. Generally speaking, you want to perform both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of risks that you identify.  Quantitative risk assessment may involve historical data and/or parametric or non-parametric models. Using historical data is often simple but may be hard in cases where the amount of data you have on a given event is low (e.g. risk of bust by investing in a cryptocurrency). Parametric and non-parametric risk quantification models exist (e.g. Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall (ES), etc) and abound but a lot of them are more complicated than necessary for an individual's requirements. Qualitative risk assessment is ""simply"" assessing the likelihood and severity of risks by using intuition, expert judgment (where that applies), etc. One may consult with outside parties (e.g. lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc) where their advisory may help highlighting some risks or understanding them better. To ease comparing investment opportunities, you may want to perform a risk assessment on categories of risks (e.g. investing in the stock market vs bond market). To compare between those categories, one should look at the whole picture (quantitative and qualitative) with their risk appetite in mind. Of course, after taking those macro decisions, you would need to further assess risks on more micro decisions (e.g. Microsoft or Google ?). You would then most likely end up with better comparatives as you would be comparing items similar in nature. Should I always consider the worst case scenario ? Because when I do that, I always can lose everything. Generally speaking, you want to consider everything so that you can perform a risk assessment and decide on your risk mitigating strategy (see Q4). By assessing the likelihood and severity of risks you may find that even in cases where you are comparatively as worse-off (e.g. in case of complete bust), the likelihood may differ. For example, keeping gold in a personal stash at home vs your employer going bankrupt if you are working for a large firm. Do note that you want to compare risks (both likelihood and severity) after any risk mitigation strategy you may want to put in place (e.g. maybe putting your gold in a safety box in a secure bank would make the likelihood of losing your gold essentially null). Is there a way to estimate the probability of such events, better than intuition ? Estimating probability or likelihood is largely dependent on data on hand and your capacity to model events. For most practical purposes of an individual, modelling would be way off in terms of reward-benefits. You may therefore want to simply research on past events and assign them a 1-5 (1 being very low, 5 being very high) risk rating based on your assessment of the likelihood. For example, you may assign a 1 on your employer going bankrupt and a 2 or 3 on being burglarized. This is only slightly better than intuition but has the merit of being based on data (e.g. frequency of burglary in your neighborhood). Should I only consider more probable outcomes and have a plan for them if they occur? This depends largely on your risk appetite. The more risk averse you are, the more thorough you will want to be in identifying, tracking and mitigating risks. For the risks that you have identified as relevant, or of concern, you may opt to establish a risk mitigating strategy, which is conventionally one of accepting, sharing (by taking insurance, for example), avoiding and reducing. It may not be possible to share or reduce some risks, especially for individuals, and so often the response will be either to accept or avoid the given risks by opting in or out on an opportunity."
why does it make sense financially to buy property and become a landlord? Because then your investment generates cash instead of just sitting idle. All taxes, fees and repairs aside it would take almost 21 years before I start making profits. No - your profit will be the rents that you collect (minus expenses). You still have an asset that is worth roughly what you paid for it (and might go up in value), so you don't need to recoup the entire cost of the property before making a profit. Compared to investing the same 150k in an ETF portfolio with conservative 4% in annual returns I would have made around 140k € after taxes in the same 21 years i.e. almost doubled the money. If you charge 600 € / month (and never miss a month of rental income), after 21 years you have made 151k € in rents plus you still have a property.  That property is most likely going to be worth more than you paid for it, so you should have at least 300k € in assets. Having said all that, it does NOT always make sense to invest in rental property.  Being a landlord can be a hard job, and there are many risks involved that are different that risks in financial investments. There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia.  Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability.   Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short   seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the   excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear.  I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...]   The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage   return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it   may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional   definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow   followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these   investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor   general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or   explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the   calculations they actually use. [...] You can't calculate how many houses it will take. To do so you would have to know how much you can charge in rent compared to how much is costs to run that particular location. If the desirability of that location changes, so does the ability to rent the place, and so does the amount you can charge. It is possible to create a business in real estate that would allow you to generate retirement income. But you would be focusing all your income in your retirement years on one segment of the entire investment universe. The diversification would have to come from spreading the money through different types of real estate: condo, apartments, houses, commercial, warehouse, light industrial. You would even have to decide whether you want them all in one micro-market, or spread throughout a larger market, or an even wider area diversification.  As your empire grew and you approached retirement age you would have to decide if you wanted to liquidate your investments to minimize risk. The long leases that provides stability of income would make it hard to sell quickly if the market in one area started to weaken. "BEFORE you invest in a house, make sure you account for all the returns, risks and costs, and compare them to returns, risks and costs of other investments. If you invest 20% of a house's value in another investment, you would also expect a return. You also probably will not have the cost interest for the balance (80% of ???). I have heard people say ""If I have a rental property, I'm just throwing away money - I'll have nothing at the end"" - if you get an interest-only loan, the same will apply, if you pay off your mortgage, you're paying a lot more - you could save/invest the extra, and then you WILL have something at the end (+interest). If you want to compare renting and owning, count the interest against the rental incoming against lost revenue (for however much actual money you've invested so far) + interest.  I've done the sums here (renting vs. owning, which IS slightly different - e.g. my house will never be empty, I pay extra if I want a different house/location). Not counting for the up-front costs (real estate, mortgage establishment etc), and not accounting for house price fluctuations, I get about the same ""return"" on buying as investing at the bank. Houses do, of course, fluctuate, both up and down (risk!), usually up in the long term. On the other hand, many people do lose out big time - some friends of mine invested when the market was high (everyone was investing in houses), they paid off as much as they could, then the price dropped, and they panicked and sold for even less than they bought for. The same applies if, in your example, house prices drop too much, so you owe more than the house is worth - the bank may force you to sell (or offer your own house as collateral). Don't forget about the hidden costs - lawn mowing and snow shoveling were mentioned, insurance, maintenance, etc - and risks like fluctuating rental prices, bad tenants, tenants moving on (loss of incoming, cleaning expenses, tidying up the place etc)...." "For a retail investor who isn't a Physics or Math major, the ""Beta"" of the stock is probably the best way to quantify risk.  Examples: A Beta of 1 means that a stock moves in line with the market. Over 1 means that you would expect the stock to move up or down faster than the market as a whole. Under 1 means that you would expect the stock to move slower than the market as a whole." "they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish).  (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected.  On average ""the market"" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be  up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free.  You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest.  You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset.  You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks.  So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off.  In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in?  Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns.  If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds).  So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk.  However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest." "TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK.    According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London.  That sounds like a terrible deal to me.  I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks.  For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.).  If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to ""lose everything"" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: ""I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.""  Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold.  In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend.   Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money?  In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment?  If not, you will be speculating, not investing.  Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing.  I don't recommend speculating." Different risks require different hedges.  You won't find a single hedge that will protect you against any risk.  The best way to think about this is who would benefit if those events occurred?  Those are the people you want to invest in.  So if a war broke out, who would benefit?  Defense contractors.  Security companies.  You get the idea. You also need to think about if you really need to hedge against those things now or not.  For example, I wouldn't bother to hedge against global warming or peak oil.  It's not like one morning you're going to wake up, turn on CNNfn and see that the stock market is down 500 points because global warming or peak oil just hit.  These are things that happen gradually and you can react to them gradually as they happen.