Evidence For/Against Real Estate Investing Vis-a-vis Investing in ETFs
Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends.   It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent.  Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in.  If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between.  As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term.  To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time.  Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view.
There is nothing wrong with self directed IRA's the problem is that most of the assets they specialize in are better done in other ways. Real estate is already extremely tax advantaged in the US. Buying inside a Traditional IRA would turn longterm capital gains (currently 15%) into ordinary income taxed at your tax rate when you withdraw this may be a plus or minus, but it is more likely than not that your ordinary income tax rate is higher. You also can't do the live in each house for 2 years before selling plan to eliminate capital gains taxes (250k individual 500k married couple). The final problem is that you are going to have problems getting a mortgage (it won't be a conforming loan) and will likely have to pay cash for any real estate purchased inside your IRA. Foreign real estate is similar to above except you have additional tax complexities. The key to the ownership in a business is that there are limits on who can control the business (you and maybe your family can't control the business). If you are experienced doing angel investing this might be a viable option (assuming you have a really big IRA you want to gamble with). If you want to speculate on precious metals you will probably be better offer using ETF's in a more traditional brokerage account (lower transactions costs more liquidity). Because interest is tax deductible. I don't know much about the Chevron deal, but I'm an EM debt analyst and typically the issue you have is that dividends are taxed but interest is not. So to move money from a subsidiary instead of putting in equity and getting dividends (tax inefficient), instead you give debt and get interest back. You get a little less flexibility on payment but you more than make up for that (on average) with tax efficiency.   Don't think of it as a loan at all. Think of it as a pseudo-equity investment with required dividends.  Revenue is not taxed, profit is. Interest comes out of profit, dividends however are issued after profit.  This could all be wrong vis-a-vis Chevron. This is just how most of the companies I look at work. "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." 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. "I work for an international real estate consulting firm in Shanghai. After graduation I worked in their Research Department for two years before switching to Commercial Brokerage 3 months ago.  Since my background was in Economics, I had to learn a lot about how the industry worked. I found this book to be very helpful:  ""Commercial Real Estate Analysis &amp; Investments"" by David Geltner.  I will admit that it's probably more than what you want to know, but it seriously gives an in depth breakdown of the entire industry.   About one year into starting, a major Real Estate iBank commissioned our company to due diligence on an office building acquisition in Shanghai. I was the only person capable of doing it as everyone else was either busy or couldn't speak English properly. With 1 year under my belt in Research and that book, I took the entire thing on. Had to walk into that meeting by myself with all the big wigs from New York, London, Hong Kong and Shanghai questioning every single number and assumption. I fucking nailed it. While credit towards understanding the market through work is deserved, a lot of the development of that report came from constantly consulting that book. It's worth every penny if your interested in commercial real estate investment.  That being said, if you want to track deals, the best place is called Real Estate Capital Analytics. Unfortunately you have to fork over a decent amount of cash to get access. For your situation I would recommend the following:  - ""The Urban Land Institute &amp; PwC Emerging Trends in Real Estate"": I believe you need to be a member but I can always find it online for free.  - Brokerage firms: I work in one and we cover residential, commercial and retail reports on cities throughout the world (I actually wrote the ones for China for two years). You can find a wealth of information in them. If you are seriously looking at buying with capital, call up the research department and ask if they have some time to discuss the market face to face; if you don't have capital, they won't talk to you. Fortunately however, most let you download their reports for free from their website so here's the list of the major ones in the US: CBRE, Colliers, CRESA, Cushman &amp; Wakefield, Jones Lang LaSalle, etc.  - The Loop - www.loopnet.com has a wealth of information from Commercial properties on the market to previous deals.  Please let me know if I can further advise." I think that some asset classes should be better protected from arbitrage.  Its not possible to prevent either greed or information asymmetry so high market volatility will continue to get worse.  However, secondary transactions directly or indirectly involving assets of a protected class:  * Food - agriculture futures, farm land mortgages, seed licenses, etc...  * Housing - Resales, mortgages, any mortgage derivatives  * Medicine - Insurance policies, drug licenses, medical debt  * Education - Debt and derivatives  Should be heavily taxes to discourage destructive arbitrage.  This will not hurt investment (in the capitalist sense) because such transactions are purely speculative. This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today.  The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob "This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment).  I'm having a hard time believing that it was ""poorly argued.""  As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)).    One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states:  *""I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.""*  I'm not here to argue for the paper.  I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize.  ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~  *Edit*:  Thought I was responding to a different thread."