401k vs REI - Data tells the story?

401k vs REI - Data tells the story?

Ronald PerichPro Member
Investor · Granite City, IL · Member since 2014 · 658 posts · 301 votes

The debate on the efficacy of REI investing over a 401(k) has raged for a long time on BiggerPockets. Thanks to a message from @Christopher Throop, I revisited the topic when he let me know a file I used during an earlier discussion wasn't working. (Link to the file below).

Well, I took the file and went a little nutty with it. And it turns out a 401(k), even with a 100% match, won't touch prudent, leveraged real estate investing over the long-term.

My assumptions:

  • You can initially save $200 per month.
  • You currently have nothing in savings.
  • The purchase price per door is $50,000 today and you only buy SFH as soon as you have enough saved.
  • Inflation causes everything to go up by 4.02% per year (average for last 30 years). This is also the "rate" you get while you are saving for your down payment.
  • Mortgage requires 25% down, 20 year note, 8.47% interest (avg for last 30 years)
  • Goal is $100/door cash flow to start so CAP rate is 10.2%
  • S&P 500 Compounded Annual Growth Rate is 11.4% (avg for last 30 years) and you don't pay any fees.
  • You get a 75% match of your savings in the 401(k)
  • All rental cash flow is plowed back into the business (just like reinvesting the dividends/gains received in the 401(k)) to make this an apples-to-apples comparison.

After 10 years:

  • The 401(k) would supply you with $843 of monthly income
  • Rentals only give you $371 of monthly income

After 20 years:

  • The 401(k) would supply you with $3,886 of monthly income
  • Rentals supply you with $4,209 of monthly income

After 30 years:

  • The 401(k) would supply you with $13,963 of monthly income
  • Rentals supply you with $34,426 of monthly income

What's really cool is the Net Worth of the investor. A conservative estimate (because the math was too difficult in a single-tabbed, dynamic spreadsheet without doing some programming) puts the rental investor at $3.0M in equity. The 401(k) owner has $1.5M in their account.

Change up the numbers a bit in the spreadsheet to see different scenarios. Change the parameters so you start with $50K in savings, $400/m savings, buying only 4-plex or more at $40K per door. At the 20 year mark, you'll be making $27K per month with rentals versus $12K per month with the 401(k). And check out the net worth (again, very conservative for the RE investor).

Monthly "Income" 5 yrs 10 yrs 15 yrs 20 yrs 25 yrs 30 yrs
REI $976 $3,370 $9,566 $27,681 $81,241 $225,864
Mutual Funds $1,150 $2,427 $4,764 $8,993 $16,578 $30,111
401(k) $1,391 $3,149 $6,402 $12,324 $22,992 $42,079
Net Worth
REI $97,426 $294,326 $861,366 $2,531,095 $7,034,454 $19,607,643
Mutual Funds $122,705 $258,444 $506,980 $956,433 $1,762,636 $3,200,930
401(k) $148,603 $335,652 $681,546 $1,311,058 $2,444,984 $4,473,632
First $100K/yr Month w/ REI 170
First $100K/yr Month w/ Mutual Funds (no match) 233
First $100K/yr Month w/ 401K (match) 204

Obviously, this is only a scenario. There are risks associated with REI and their are risks associated with the S&P 500. But the numbers don't lie. If you buy prudently, if you manage correctly, you can build a better income over the long-run with real estate than you can with the stock market.

Conversation? A couple of starters...

  • Diversification is important and buying only rentals is probably not what you would do over your whole career
  • You'll have some "pigs" (as @Ben Leybovich likes to call them) from time-to-time that won't work out. Just ask @Engelo Rumora.
  • You'll probably have a lawsuit or two that will reach into your assets (just ask @Brian Burke)
  • I assume you'll hold these properties into infinity. You should probably rebalance your portfolio over time, selling some to buy others, etc. Most of the time, that should end up with you owning better, more profitable property but I couldn't account for it in an easy spreadsheet.

What other issues do you see with the spreadsheet or my logic? I'm all for a healthy debate and/or you telling me I fouled up on the calculations.

Check out the file located at https://www.biggerpockets.com/files/1049/download. You can use LibreOffice or OpenOffice to open it. I couldn't save as Excel because some of the calculations are from Excel 2007 or later and LibreOffice won't save beyond Excel 2003. Look at the "Details" tab for all of the nitty-gritty math and stuff.

4Reply
107 views

Most Popular Reply

Justin WindhamPro Member
Banker · Nationwide · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
10y
Originally posted by @Scott Trench:

@Ronald Perich Did you think that you would look so smart just two days after this post? Did you notice the market just tanked today on the China stuff? 

More to your point - which I think is less "don't invest in 401(k)" and more "don't invest in 401(k) when that means that you set aside a bunch of money each paycheck just because your company and *big brand mutual fund company" tell you it's the smart thing to do.

Scott, I'm glad you clarified that point. I always think the "real estate vs 401k" discussion is a bit funny because that's not really what is being contrasted here.

Real estate is an asset. 

A 401k is an investment vehicle that can acquire assets. 

Take for example the 401ks that hold real estate as an asset and you'll see what I mean. I agree 100% with the points behind most of these "real estate vs stock market or other non-tangible paper asset that is only some derivative of something else with actual value" arguments. I'm just saying it's not the 401k that is the problem. It's the asset.

I try to point out that you can have that fantastic asset that is real estate AND get the tax advantages that made 401ks popular in the first place before 401k becomes too profane of a word. :-)

See this reply in the discussion

29 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Justin WindhamPro Member
    Banker · Nationwide · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Frank S.:

    @Ronald Perich 

    Yes, this is absolutely necessary!  "Get the company match" The match is not that much, but it's free money.

    My own spreadsheet compares REI with stocks over 30 yeras. Yes, in paper REI trumps stocks after a 6/40 years (depends) , but this is expected in light of the higher risks. The key is to fully analyse those risks. Also, the REI returns could be decimated by sell costs ( 10% to agent+closing costs  and 25% recapture tax)

    Only experienced investors should go 100% stocks. Many can't take the bleeding during a black swan and sell.  This will lock them into a loss.  The market will always go up ( hopefully).  Don't worry about China, OPEC, or Greece, it's just noise.

    Now, a balanced investment may also need bonds.  This should reduce the returns to +- 5% if they use age-100 rule of thumb for their stocks/bond asset allocation. 

    Either way, the numbers are good on REI. My main concern with anyone discussing this topic is the intrinsic risk with RE.

    Best, 

    Frank

     I think the intrinsic risk is there with stocks too. Your statement that "the market will always go up (hopefully)" can be applied to real estate even more realistically than it can be to the stock market. With real estate, you have more intrinsic value of the asset than you do with paper. I also think it's easier to manage the risk that accompanies most real estate transactions with knowledge and experience with your investments. There are a lot more factors affecting most stock assets and those factors can be much more outside the individual investor's control.

  • Specialist · Chicago, IL · Member since 2015 · 870 posts · 345 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Justin Windham:
    Originally posted by @Frank S.:

    @Ronald Perich 

    Yes, this is absolutely necessary!  "Get the company match" The match is not that much, but it's free money.

    My own spreadsheet compares REI with stocks over 30 yeras. Yes, in paper REI trumps stocks after a 6/40 years (depends) , but this is expected in light of the higher risks. The key is to fully analyse those risks. Also, the REI returns could be decimated by sell costs ( 10% to agent+closing costs  and 25% recapture tax)

    Only experienced investors should go 100% stocks. Many can't take the bleeding during a black swan and sell.  This will lock them into a loss.  The market will always go up ( hopefully).  Don't worry about China, OPEC, or Greece, it's just noise.

    Now, a balanced investment may also need bonds.  This should reduce the returns to +- 5% if they use age-100 rule of thumb for their stocks/bond asset allocation. 

    Either way, the numbers are good on REI. My main concern with anyone discussing this topic is the intrinsic risk with RE.

    Best, 

    Frank

     I think the intrinsic risk is there with stocks too. Your statement that "the market will always go up (hopefully)" can be applied to real estate even more realistically than it can be to the stock market. With real estate, you have more intrinsic value of the asset than you do with paper. I also think it's easier to manage the risk that accompanies most real estate transactions with knowledge and experience with your investments. There are a lot more factors affecting most stock assets and those factors can be much more outside the individual investor's control.

    Good points!  

    Sure, there is systematic and unsystematic risks with any investment.

    One could argue that REI allows for more control over unsystematic risk (management), for it's a numbers game. The systematic risk can be also controlled by doing due diligence. E.g., not buying in North Dakota ghosts towns.

    As a 401K provider, you should be able to confirm that fees are destroying American's nest eggs. Front load fees, redemption fees, 12B-1 fees, turnovers, expense ratios, are pushed down the throats of our people in order to pay bonuses and kickbacks to mangers and consultants. Fortunately, REI is able to replace those fees for maintenance and commissions.

    It can be said that REI lacks liquidity, unlike stocks or bonds (liquidity assumes easy exchange and no substantial loss in value). RE "front end" and "redemption" fees (buy/sell) are high; this can make or break a deal. Perhaps, as technology advances, these fees can be reduced to more manageable levels.

    Perhaps, comparing stocks and bonds returns with REI performance should not be the only focus of these discussions.

    Frank

  • Justin WindhamPro Member
    Banker · Nationwide · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    @Frank S.

    I agree with your last post. And yes, I do think the traditional 401k model is overrun with fees and that is part of why I love what I do so much. Our plans allow people to invest into whatever asset classes they'd like to and we don't charge any of the fees you mentioned.

    I do, of course, have my preferences when it comes to stocks and bonds vs REI (which is why I'm on BP!), but I have no vested interest in whether one of our clients opts for one, the other, or both and that's just the way I like it. :)

  • Specialist · Chicago, IL · Member since 2015 · 870 posts · 345 votes
    10y

    @Justin Windham,

    I checked your website, a flat fee system is the way it should be. Fee-only advisers and managers is the way to go.  The investor can then compare services and investment options. 

    I think this is slightly off topic, I apologize for that.  However, regarding investment options, for the vast majority of Americans, low cost broadly diversified index funds that closely track their benchmark should be the only option to consider when investing in stocks and bonds.

    Yes, a few managed ones beat the market, but you typically won't find Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) as an option in the American's traditional 401ks.  For the rest, they could pay up to $75,000 in fees. 

     If anyone is interested in researching this topic they should look at this brief video by PBS

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/retirement-...

    Also, this website may help you can dissect the funds prospectus.  Most investments over 0.18% expense ratios are junk, not all of them, but most. 

    http://apps.finra.org/fundanalyzer/1/fa.aspx

    Fro instance, regarding stocks, people should run the calcs and compare their investment options in mutual funds against VTSMX. 

    https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?Fu...

    E.g., Vanguard Total Stock ER: 0.17%, return:  9.21% since inception 

    Thanks a lot for the feedback. Now, I have to focus on RE during my lunch.

    Best wishes, 

    Frank

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.