What is the fastest way to retire, using passive income on real estate
It is worth noting first that Real Estate is by no means passive income.  The amount of effort and cost involved (maintenance, legal, advertising, insurance, finding the properties, ect.) can be staggering and require a good amount of specialized knowledge to do well. The amount you would have to pay a management company to do the work for you especially with only a few properties can wipe out much of the income while you keep the risk. However, keshlam's answer still applies pretty well in this case but with a lot more variability.  One million dollars worth of property should get you there on average less if you do much of the work yourself.  However, real estate because it is so local and done in ~100k chunks is a lot more variable than passive stocks and bonds, for instance, as you can get really lucky or really unlucky with location, the local economy, natural disasters, tenants... Taking out loans to get you to the million worth of property faster but can add a lot more risk to the process.   Including the risk you wouldn't have any money on retirement.  Investing in Real Estate can be a faster way to retirement than some, but it is more risky than many and definitely not passive. 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. Rule of thumb: To retire with a yearly income of $X, you need to save $(20*X) -- in other words, the safe assumption is that you'll average 4% returns on your stabilized savings/investments. In the case of retiring with a $50k passive pretax income, that means you need savings of $1M by the time you retire. If you want the $50,000 to be real post-tax spendable dollars, and your savings aren't in something like a Roth 401k or Roth IRA, increase that proportionately to account for taxes. How you get there depends on what you start with, how much you put into it every year, how you invest it and how many years you have before your retirement date. Passive investment alone will not do it unless you start with a lot of money; passive ongoing investment may depending on how much you can make yourself save when. To find out whether any specific plan will do what you need, you have to work with real numbers.
Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent:  If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people:  In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them. "Another option you might consider is rolling over some of that 401K balance into a self-directed IRA or Solo 401K, specifically one with ""checkbook privileges"". That would permit you to invest directly in a property via your IRA/401K money without it being a loan, and preserving the tax benefits. (You may not be able to roll over from your current employer's 401K while still employed.)  That said, regarding your argument that your loan is ""paying interest to yourself"", while that is technically true, that neglects the opportunity cost -- that money could potentially be earning a much higher (and tax-free) return if it remains in the 401K account than if you take it out and slowly repay it at a modest interest rate. Real Estate can be a great way to diversify, build wealth, and generate income, but a company match and tax-free growth via an employee sponsored retirement account can be a pretty sweet deal too (I actually recently wrote about comparing returns from having a tenant pay your mortgage on a rental property vs. saving in a retirement account on my blog -- in short, tax-free stock-market level returns are pretty compelling, even when someone else is paying your mortage). Before taking rather big steps like borrowing from a 401K or buying a rental property, you might also explore other ways to gain some experience with real estate investing, such as the new crop of REITs open to all investors under SEC Reg A+, some with minimums of $500 or less. In my own experience, there are two main camps of real estate investors: (1) those that love the diversification and income, but have zero interest in active management, and (2) those that really enjoy real estate as a lifestyle and avocation, happy to deal with tenant screening and contractors, etc. You'll want to be careful to be sure which camp you're in before signing on to active investment in a specific property." A 401k plan will ask you to name a beneficiary who will receive the funds if you don't withdraw them all before death. Usually, a primary beneficiary and a secondary beneficiary is requested. If you don't specify a beneficiary, your estate is the beneficiary by default.  Note that the name supplied to the 401k plan is who will get the money, and you cannot change this by bequeathing the money in your will. For example, if you neglected to change the beneficiary upon divorce, it is useless to say in your will that the money in the 401k plan goes to your new wife; the 401k plan will give it to your ex-wife who still remains the beneficiary of your 401k Money in a 401k plan is what is called income with respect to a decedent (IRD)  on which income tax is levied, and it is also is part of your estate and thus liable to be subject to estate tax.  The latter is true even if the 401k plan assets are not mentioned anywhere in your will, and even if the assets got sent to your ex-wife which is not what you wanted to have happen.  There are various estate tax exceptions for spouse beneficiaries (no  estate tax due now, but will be charged when the spouse passes away). With regard to income tax, the beneficiaries of a 401k plan (similarly IRAs, 403b plans etc) generally get to take the whole amount and pay the income  tax themselves. Edit in response to littleadv's comments: Each 401k plan is different, and some plans, especially the smaller ones, may prefer to distribute the  401k assets as a lump sum rather than allow the beneficiaries to withdraw  the money over several years (and pay income tax on the amount withdrawn each year). This is because there are far too many rules and regulations to trip over when making withdrawals over several years. The lump sum distribution can be transferred into a newly established  Inherited IRA (see the Nolo article linked to in @littleadv's answer for some details and some pitfalls to avoid) and the income tax is thus deferred until withdrawals occur.  Spouse  beneficiaries are entitled to more generous rules than non-spouse  beneficiaries. If your heirs are otherwise well provided for and you are in a  philanthropic mood (or you don't want to give 'em a dime, the ungrateful... who never call, not even on Father's Day!), one way of avoiding a  lot of tax is to make the beneficiary of your 401k be one or more of your favorite charities. In fact, if your testamentary inclination is to make some charitable bequests as part of your will, it is much more advantageous to give money from a tax-deferred account to the charity (size of estate is reduced, no income  tax paid by anyone on amount given), and bequeath assets in non-retirement accounts to one's heirs (bequests are not taxable income, and heirs get a step up in basis for assets that have appreciated) rather than the other way around (heirs pay income tax as they withdraw the money from tax-deferred  account) Estate planning is a complicated business, and you really should talk to a professional about such matters and not rely on advice from an Internet forum. "I think this is possible under very special conditions.  The important part of the description here is probably retired and rich.  The answers so far apply to people with ""normal"" incomes - both in the sense of ""not rich"" and in the sense of ""earned income."" If you sit at the top tax bracket and get most of your income through things like dividends, then you might be able to win multiple ways with the strategy described.  First you get the tax deduction on the mortgage interest, which everyone has properly noted is not by itself a winning game - You spend more than you save.   BUT... There are other factors, especially for the rich and those whose income is mostly passive: I'm not motivated enough on the hypothetical situation to come up with a detailed example, but I think it's possible that this could work out.  In any case, the current answers using ""normal sized"" incomes and middle tax brackets don't necessarily give the insight that you might hope if the tax payer really is unusually wealthy and retired." "If you're looking for a well-rounded view into what it's like to actually own/manage real-estate investments, plus how you can scale things up & keep the management workload relatively low, have a look at the Bigger Pockets community.  There are blogs, podcasts, & interviews there from both full-time & part-time real estate investors. It's been a great resource for me in my investments. More generally, your goal of ""retiring"" within 20 years is very attainable even without getting extravagant investment returns.  A very underrated determinant in how quickly you build wealth is how much of your income you are contributing to investments. Have a look at this article: The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement" As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment. It's tough to avoid the discussion of taxes. Matthew's answer was excellent but of course, tax was part of the discussion.  In an article I wrote a while back, The 15% solution, I described how one can optimize taxes paid by using Roth (401 or IRA) while at a marginal 15%, and carefully transition to pretax to avoid the 25% bracket. It's possible to effectively save money from a 25% rate and withdraw it at 0%. (Zero is what one pays for the first $20K of a couple's income, this is the combined standard deduction and personal exemptions.) It would take $500K at retirement to produce the $20,000 withdrawal at a 4% rate. Keep in mind, this is a moving target as the numbers edge up each year.  With no match, I'd consider the Roth IRA. But I also agree, paying higher interest debt first is a wise priority. The most tax efficient way to get some cash would be to sell some stocks from the Fidelity account that have the lowest capital gains. The tax will typically be 15% of the capital gains. This will be a one-time cost which should save you money compared to paying 7.5% on the loan year after year. Tax on selling the stock options will probably be higher, since you imply there would be high capital gains, and some of the proceeds might even be taxed as income, not capital gains.