Cash Flow vs. Equity Growth: What's more important?

[Dan K.]

I've invested in both Cash flow markets and equity returns markets for the last 15 years.  The cash flow markets were in Kansas and Texas. The equity markets were in California.  While the cash flow markets (Texas and Kansas) produced solid returns with good cash flow, the equity growth were modest. For example, homes that I purchased in 2013-2014 have appreciated 50-60% Texas. Respectable at best.   Compared to California homes which appreciated closer to 80% during this same time period.   The big different is that homes in California were about 5X the cost of homes in Texas and so on the front end they seemed much more risky.  Investing in 1 California home of $750,000 created  more wealth than buying 5 Texas homes for $150,000.  

Cash flow properties are safer but I don't think investing in equity growth is "gambling" as many people state in REI forums. I think that if you can break even, investing in equity rich areas like the coastal areas might be the smarter long term play. Cash flow properties give you money to live on, but equity growth is what will really accelerate your wealth. I realize there are players on this forum who have gotten rich on just Cashflow investments alone. However, for the medium size investor, investing on equity growth might be the smarter long term bet. Your thoughts?