Can buying REIT's be compared to investing in Real Estate?
"A couple of distinctions. First, if you were to ""invest in real estate"" were you planning to buy a home to live in, or buy a home to rent out to someone else?  Buying a home as a primary residence really isn't ""investing in real estate"" per se.  It's buying a place to live rather than renting one.  Unless you rent a room out or get a multi-family unit, your primary residence won't be income-producing.  It will be income-draining, for the most part.  I speak as a homeowner. Second, if you are buying to rent out to someone else, buying a single home is quite a bit different than buying an REIT.  The home is a lot less liquid, the transaction costs are higher, and all of your eggs are in one basket.  Having said that, though, if you buy one right and do your homework it can set you on the road for a very comfortable retirement." well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property;  industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks.  Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria.
I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation.  When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates. "Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price.  There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year.  Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price.   Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves.  For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year.  These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other ""Partnership"" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash.  Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement.  The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions." Reasons for no: In your first sentence you say something interesting: rates low -  prices high.  Actually those 2 are reversely correlated, imagine if rates would be 5% higher-very few people could buy at current prices so prices would drop. Also you need to keep in mind the rate of inflation that was much higher during some periods in the US history(for example over 10% in the 1980) so you can not make comparisons just based on the nominal interest rate. Putting all your eggs in one basket. If you think real estate is a good investment buy some REITs for 10k, do not spend 20% of your future income for 20 years. Maintenance - people who rent usually underestimate this or do not even count it when making rent vs mortgage comparisons. Reasons for yes:   Lifestyle decision - you don't want to be kicked out of your house, you want to remodel...     Speculation - I would recommend against this strongly, but housing prices go up and down, if they will go up you can make a lot     of money. To answer one of questions directly: 1. My guess is that FED will try to keep rates well bellow 10% (even much lower, since government can not service debts if interest rates go much higher), but nobody can say if they will succeed. So your accountant certainly knows much more than I do about Israeli tax law and its interactions with US tax law, which is zero.  I'm going to look at this problem from the investment perspective which I hope to convince you is the most important place to start. Then you can adjust for interactions between the Isreali and US tax codes. Even if the tax breaks are exceptional, it would be hard to recommend buying real estate as an investment in the 7-10 year time frame.  Especially if this real estate is in the US.  Open/Closing fees, mortgage fees, risk of property devaluation, bad-renters, acts of god, insurance costs and tax complications make short to medium term investments in real estate a particularly risky way to invest.  Buying a local apartment and renting is somewhat more reasonable as you don't have to worry about the currency conversion and you can do a lot more research in your local environment and keep a closer eye on the property, it is  still this a pretty concentrated risk. Saving and investing using tax-advantaged accounts is generally considered a great way to build toward a down payment in the medium term.  A mixture of mostly local bonds with some local and foreign stocks and more and more cash as it gets close to purchase time is generally what is recommended when saving for a home.  This mixture is relatively safe and will tend to grow steadily without the concentrated risk of a real estate investment.  PFIC rules are complicated and certainly worth taking some time to understand, but owning real estate especially in a foreign country seems much more complicated and certainly riskier. There may be some rule that makes investing in REITs much better than normal stocks in these particular accounts though I would be surprised if that were the case.  It is generally not true for people under just he US tax code. So while option (1) may not be the absolute best from a tax perspective it would certainly be my guess as the most likely to succeed. From what I hear, usually not.  Get an amortization schedule for the property, and see what the savings on the interest rate is.  Then see what the interest versus borrowing less is. The consider that you can invest the buy down money, or better yet use it as down payment and borrow less money.  Typically (as experienced by wife who use to be a loan processor) the buy down did not save any money, and just made the broker a bigger commission. IRR is subjective, if you could provide another metric instead of the IRR; then this would make sense. You can't spend IRR. For example, you purchase a property with a down payment; and the property provides cash-flow; you could show that your internal rate of return is 35%, but your actual rate of importance could be the RoR, or Cap Rate. I feel that IRR is very subjective. IRR is hardly looked at top MBA programs. It's studied, but other metrics are used, such as ROI, ROR, etc. IRR should be a tool that you visually compare to another metric. IRR can be very misleading, for example it's like the cash on cash return on an investment. "Real estate is not a good investment.  In fact, it's easy to make a case for it being the worst possible investment imaginable: Imagine over a cup or coffee or a glass of wine we get to talking   about investments. Then maybe one of us, let’s say you, says: “Hey I’ve got an idea. We’re always talking about good investments.   What if we came up with the worst possible investment we can   construct? What might that look like?” Well, let’s see now (pulling out our lined yellow pad), let’s make a   list. To be really terrible: -- Why Your House Is A Terrible Investment There are plenty of good reasons to own a home, but the key word there is ""home"".  Owning housing as an investment property is a horrible idea, and anyone who does it, especially right now with as bubbly as the market is looking again, (or, better put, still, since the last bubble never did fully pop and clear out the underlying systemic instability,) is an idiot. And even after the current housing market bubble pops, it's likely to remain a bad idea for decades.  We're never getting the early 2000s back, for basic supply-and-demand reasons: with the Baby Boom generation retiring, aging and dying off, they're not likely to do much more home-buying, and no generation after them is as big as they are, which means a glut of oversupply and weak demand for the entirety of the foreseeable future." "Maybe a bit off topic, but I suggest reading ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"" by Robert Kiyosaki. An investment is something that puts money to your pocket. If your properties don't put money to your pocket (and this seems to be the case), then they're not an investment. Instead, they drain money from you pocket. Therefore you should instead turn these ""investments"" into real investments. Make everything to earn some money using them, not to earn money somewhere else to cover the loses they create. If that's not possible, get rid of them and find something that ""puts money into your pocket""."