Is investing into real estate a good move for a risk-averse person at the moment
Real estate is never a low-risk investment. I'd keep your money in the bank, and make sure that you don't have more in any one bank than is guaranteed in the event of bank failure. If your bank account is in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal or Ireland, I'd consider moving it to Eurozone country that's in better shape, as there's just a slight possibility of one or more of those countries exiting the Eurozone in a disorderly fashion and forcibly converting bank accounts to a new and weak currency. I'll add this to what the other answers said: if you are a renter now, and the real estate you want to buy is a house to live in, then it may be worth it - in a currency devaluation, rent may increase faster than your income.  If you pay cash for the home, you also have the added benefit of considerably reducing your monthly housing costs. This makes you more resilient to whatever the future may throw at you - a lower paying job, for instance, or high inflation that eats away at the value of your income.  If you get a mortgage, then make sure to get a fixed interest rate. In this case, it protects you somewhat from high inflation because your mortgage payment stays the same, while what you would have had to pay in rent keeps going up an up. In both cases there is also taxes and insurance, of course. And those would go up with inflation.  Finally, do make sure to purchase sensibly. A good rule of thumb on how much you can afford to pay for a home is 2.5x - 3.5x your annual income. I do realize that there are some areas where it's common for people to buy homes at a far greater multiple, but that doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to do.  Also: I'll second what @sheegaon said; if you're really worried about the euro collapsing, it might give you some peace of mind to move some money into UK Gilts or US Treasuries. Just keep in mind that currencies do move against each other, so you'd see the euro value of those investments fluctuate all the time. "If you live and work in the euro-zone, then even after a ""crash"" all of your income and most of your expenses will still be in euros.  The only portion of your worth you need to worry about protecting is the portion you intend to spend on goods from outside the euro-zone (i.e. imports).  In that case, you may want to consider parking some of your money in short-term government bonds issued by other countries, such as the UK, Switzerland, and USA (or wherever else your favorite goods tend to come from).  If the euro actually ""massively devalues"" (an extremely unlikely scenario), then you can expect foreign goods to cost a lot more than they do now.  Inflation might also pick up, so you might also want to purchase some OATis." It's always a good move for risk-averse person, expecially in Europe. Because houses are not represented by number in an index. Therefor if you are risk-adverse, you will suffer less pain when house prices go down because you won't have a number to look at everyday like the S&P500 index. Because houses in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain) are almost all made by concrete and really well done (string real marble cover, hard ceramic covers, copper pipes, ...) compared to the ones in US. The house will still be almost new after 30 years, it will just need a repaint and really few/cheap fixings. Because on the long run (20/30 years) hosues are guaranteed to rise in price, expecially in dense places like big city, NY, San Francisco, etc. The reason is simple: the number of people is ever growing in this world, but the quantity of land is always the same. Moreover there is inflation, do you really think that 30 years from now building a concrete house will be less expensive than today??? Do you think the concrete will cost less? Do you think the gasoline that moves the trucks that bring the concrete will be less expensive than now? Do you think the labour cost will be less expensice than now? So, 30 years from now building an house will be much more expensive than today, and therefor your house wil be more expensive too. On the lomng run stock market do not guarantee you to always increase. The US stock market have always been growing in the long run, but Japan stock market today is at the same level of 30 years ago. Guess what happened to you if you invested your money in the Japan stock market, 30 years ago, whilest your friend bought an hosue in Japan 30 years ago. He would now be rich, and you would now be poor.
"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with ""Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry."" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market.  Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above." "A home is an investment, but the value it returns isn't primarily financial ($$) - they are consumption (a place to live). This gives it different characteristics than other investments (e.g. increasing the amount invested by buying a more expensive home doesn't do much to assist your financial well-being and future income, and isn't necessarily the ""responsible"" thing to do). You may get some capital gains, typically in line with inflation, sometimes less, sometimes more, but those aren't the most reliable, and it's difficult to realize them (it involves selling your house and moving). Its main value as a hedge is a hedge against rising rent. But if you're still working full-time and can expect cost-of-living increases, that hedge may not be as valuable to you as it would to, say, someone living on a fixed income. But as for treating it as a ""low-risk investment""? That's very problematic. Real low-risk investments are things like government bonds, where you can't lose principal. Unless you're going to live into your house until the day you die, the real estate crash should have disabused you of any notion that housing values never go down. Rather, your house is a single, indivisible, undiversified, illiquid investment. Imagine, if you will, going to your brokerage and borrowing a hundred thousand dollars or more on margin to invest in a single real estate investment trust... then take away whatever diversification the trust offered by holding multiple properties. Also, you can't sell any of it until you move away, and the transaction fee will take something like 3%. Still sound ""safe""? Moreover, it's exactly the wrong kind of risk. Your house's value is tied to what people are willing to pay for housing where your house is, which is usually subject to the whims of the local economy. This means that in a recession and housing bust in the local economy, you can lose your job and have your mortgage go underwater at the same time. It totally makes sense to treat your house as an investment to some extent, and it makes double sense for a financial adviser to consider it as part of your investment recommendations. ""Safety"" is not the way you should be thinking of it, though." Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction).    It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question! "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." "All other factors being equal, owning your primary residence is almost always a good investment over the long haul. Why? Because you have to live somewhere, and rentals, especially long-term leases that are important when you have kids in school, etc.,  are generally in the same ballpark as a mortgage in most markets. Giving $1,500 to a landlord gets me 30 days of living somewhere. Giving $1,500 to the bank gets me a place to live and equity in an asset which requires maintenance, but always has intrinsic value.  Detroit is one extreme, Manhattan or Silicon Valley is another real estate extreme... everywhere else is somewhere in the middle. What isn't always a good investment is speculating in highly elastic ""investment property"" like vacation condos as an amateur. It's a cyclical market, but our attention spans are too short to realize that. As most of the other answers to this question indicate, people tend to be down in the dumps and see all of the problems with real estate when the market is not very good. Conversely people only see the upside and are oblivious to problems when the market is high." "There's no such thing as true ""passive income."" You are being paid the risk free rate to delay consumption (i.e., the super low rate you are getting on savings accounts and CDs) and a higher rate to bear risk. You will not find truly risk-free investments that earn more than the types of investments you have been looking at...most likely you will not keep up with inflation in risk-free investments. For a person who is very risk averse but wants to make a little more money than the risk-free rate, the solution is not to invest completely in slightly risky things.  Instead the best thing you can do is invest partially in a fully diversified portfolio.  A diversified portfolio (containing stocks, bonds, etc) will earn you the most return for the given amount of risk.  If you want very little risk, put very little in that portfolio and keep the rest in your CDs. Put 90% of your money in a CD or something and the other 10% in stocks/bonds.  Or choose a different percentage. You can also buy real assets, like real estate, but you will find yourself taking a different type of risk and doing a different type of work with those assets." Be very careful about buying property because it has been going up quickly in recent years.  There are some fundamental factors that limit the amount real-estate can appreciate over time.  In a nutshell, the general real-estate market growth is supported by the entry-level property market.  That is, when values are appreciating, people can sell and use the capital gains to buy more valuable property.  This drives up the prices in higher value properties whose owners can use that to purchase more expensive properties and so on and so forth. At some point in a rising market, the entry-level properties start to become hard for entry-level buyers to afford.  The machine of rising prices throughout the market starts grinding to a halt.  This price-level can be calculated by looking at average incomes in an area.  At some percentage of income, people cannot buy into the market without crazy loans and if those become popular, watch out because things can get really ugly.  If you want an example, just look back to the US in 2007-2009 and the nearly apocalyptic financial crisis that ensued. As with most investing, you want to buy low and sell high.  Buying into a hot market is generally not very profitable.  Buying when the market is abnormally low tends to be a more effective strategy. "If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably ""Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,"" not ""is it smart to buy a house in college.""  In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck."