Why would anyone invest substantially in stocks when purchasing real estate/rental property results in an actual, tangible asset that isn't 90% marshmallowfluff
>>1036205
3 reasons:
1. Diversity
2. You can't invest in real estate until you have saved up a sizable deposit
3. Superior Liquidity
Barrier of entry is much lower for stocks. Also, property requires physically researching, while stocks research can be done sitting on your ass.
t. 2008
1031 you fucking retard.
>>1036205
REITs are a pretty nice alternative
>>1036205
>stocks are marshmellowfluff
Stocks means you own a part of the company, that's as real as it gets. Stock PRICES, on the other hand...
Why are normies obsessed with "tangible assets"? They're terrified of stocks because they're not a physical possesion but are perfectly okay with going deep into debt to buy real estate, which "only goes up!". And of course real estate is stringly dependent on the coninued success of intangible assets.
Stocks are much more liquid than real estate. You don't have to maintain and repair stocks. The only reason to invest in real estate is because of the crazy leverage and small upfront capital. You can only borrow 50 percent when investing in stocks so the amount of money you can get per dollar is much lower.
>>1036788
*strongly
Real estate is in a HUGE bubble right now. You must be joking.
Property is a marshmallow puff of over 700 trillion in Derivatives.
Investing in real estate is a good idea and should be a part of any well diversified portfolio. While most people do have it as their most "real" asset you can still get access to in a more liquid form. While owning the real asset can reward with an illiquidity premium it carries higher concentration risk than an indirect investment.
Obviously, you can't live in an indirect investment though.
