Pension or Property: Should I invest in more properties, or in a pension?
Diversification is one aspect to this question, and Dr Fred touches on its relationship to risk.  Another aspect is leverage: So it again comes down to your appetite for risk.  A further factor is that if you are successfully renting out your property, someone else is effectively buying that asset for you, or at least paying the interest on the mortgage. Just bear in mind that if you get into a situation where you have 10 properties and the rent on them all falls at the same time as the property market crashes (sound familiar?) then you can be left on the hook for a lot of interest payments and your assets may not cover your liabilities. Investing in property hoping that it will gain value is usually foolish; real estate increases about 3% a year in the long run.  Investing in property to rent is labor-intensive; you have to deal with tenants, and also have to take care of repairs.  It's essentially getting a second job. I don't know what the word pension implies in Europe; in America, it's an employer-funded retirement plan separate from personally funded retirement.  I'd invest in personally funded retirement well before buying real estate to rent, and diversify my money in that retirement plan widely if I was within 10-20 years of retirement. "I think the real answer to your question here is diversification.  You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment.  However, the same logic works in your rental property.  If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a ""break even"" investment very quickly.  In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk.  Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc.  Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt.  While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest.   To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -"
"From a more technical point of view, a trust is a legal relationship between 3 parties: Trusts can take many forms. People setup trusts to ensure that property is used in a specific way. Owning a home with a spouse is a form of a trust. A pension plan is a trust. Protecting land from development often involves placing it in trust. Wealthy people use trusts for estate planning for a variety of reasons. There's no ""better"" or ""best"" trust on a general level... it all depends on the situation that you are in and the desired outcome that you are looking for." Well, I am an investor/ Lessor under DHA properties. Oflate, DHA lost it identity as a Govt agency and try to imitate a worst (not the best) real eastate agent. Every year rental valuation is a drama or waste of time and money to lessor. They pull down the rent by 10 to 22% and ask for a secondary valuation for no reasons. They don't even agree with market evidence and start bullying or black mailing tactics to force you to aceept a below market rent or the threat of third review , a very expensive review shared 50% by lessor and rest the poor tax payers! The thir review also badly influenced by DHA by submitting biased valuations and thereby destroying the independence of valuation. The API appointed valuer neither follow the DHA gudie nor the API guide and also ignore the market reality and take the average rent for the area. You also losse 14 to 18% as management fees paid to DHA. Selling also a problem and its high time the CWG and the Minster in charge of the DHA must institute an independent investigation to expose the potential nexus between the valuers and the DHA and how the lessor (a self funded retiree, pensioners and others). I already lodged a complaint with Ombudsman and waiting for a reply. There are 14 Lessors all in a Private street (Only DHA leased property in that street) near 213 Ray rd Epping 2121 that are leased to DHA for more than 10 years. Please note most of those Lessors almost lost $10000 per year because DHA under cut the rent to them when they paid me the market rent for many years. DHA by mistake send the rent paid to all. We have called for the details of rent paid to all the 14 lessors in that private street from 2008 todate under the Freedom of Information Act and waiting. As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate.   An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account).  As you approach retirement, that number should increase.  At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses.  At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses.  You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund.  You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement.   The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share.  For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate.   That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment.  Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy.  Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now.   Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate.  Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership.  If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds.  50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified.   If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match.   I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages.  This matches the overall market diversification.  Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security.  Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities.  So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work.   Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate.  This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties.   If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses.  These include:   Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change.  Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero.  What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack?   Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants.  Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants.  So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent.  You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time.   Don't forget the sales value of your current house.  Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper.  Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage.  Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it.  Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house?   I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k.  Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me.  What will you do if there is another housing crash?  With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments.  Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either.   All that said, maybe it's a good deal.  You have more information about it than we do.  Just...be careful. Ah, but that's not how the game is played. There are no free lunches, but there are lunches that are free (or mostly free) to individuals. As someone on the receiving end of a pension, your only objective is to lock in the highest average payout. The cost of that will be borne by shareholders and customers of the business so a higher number is always better right up to the point that the company folds. And... because of the PBGC, there is a discount on the risk of the company being dragged under by its pension costs. Even if the company goes under, the pensioners still probably get *something*. Likewise, it's in a company's best interest to underfund pensions as much as possible. Paying pensions from free cash flow keeps the least dollars tied up in poor investments, leaving the company the most room to manage its assets efficiently. Likewise, corporate bosses also know that they can be aggressive with  pension promises, because they are *allowed* to under-fund those liabilities. It's a taxpayer-backed boondoggle; just because taxpayers aren't paying up-front doesn't mean they aren't the lender of last resort: that's just a political reality. There's no IRABGC waiting to bail *my* ass out if the market crashes. 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. "with 150K € to invest to ""become a landlord"" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost." When you buy a property the house or the building goes down in value every year (it gets depreciated) similar to when you drive a new car out of the lot. However, it is the land that increases in value over time. As land becomes scarcer the value of land in that area will increase in value, as does land in sought after areas. If more people want to live in a particular suburb the land value will keep on increasing year after year. Sometimes established areas with houses built in the 1980s or even earlier can be worth much more than newly built areas. It comes down to the supply and demand of land and houses in a particular area. You might even get a situation where a run-down dilapidated house in a very sought after suburb sells for more than a brand new house in a less sought-after suburb nearby. Properties can be a very good investment and they can be a very poor investment. It can largely depend on the decisions you make in buying your investment property. The first thing you need to make a decision on is the location of the property. If you buy a property in a good area that is well sought after you can make good capital and rental returns over the long run. If you buy poorly in an area no one wants to live in then you might have problems renting it out or only be able to rent it out to bad tenants who cause damage, and you may not get any capital gains over many years. The second thing you need to decide on is when in the property cycle you buy the property. If you buy at the right time you can get higher rents and make some quick capital gains over a relatively short time. I can provide a personal example of this situation. I had bought a house (in Australia) in 2007 for $240,000 at a time when interests where at their highest (9%), no one was buying property and rents were on the increase (with low vacancy rates). Today, eight years after, we are getting $410 per week rent and the house next door (in worse condition than ours) has been put on the market asking for between $500,000 to $550,000 (most houses in the area had been selling during this year for over $500,000). So you can say that our house has more than doubled in 8 years. However, up to a few months ago houses were selling within 2 weeks of being listed. The house next door however, has been listed for over a month and has not had very much interest. So from this you can conclude that in 2007 we had bought near the bottom of the market, whilst now we are near the top of the market. What you also need to remember is that different areas of a country can have different cycles, so there is not just one property cycle but many property cycles in the same country. Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers.  Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?).  This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance.   My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently.  There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord.  Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release.