Sunday, 14 November 2021

Property Versus Stocks (REITs)


You know the bullshit out there?

Its not a fair or balanced comparison when right out of the gate, you can't afford properties yet lah! Wink.

I mean anyone and everyone can afford $1,000 to buy a stock or REIT. 

Youth, remember your goal to earn and save $100K before 30? 

Well, that's just nice to pay for the 20% deposit for a $500K HDB 5 room flat. 

And... Poof! Just like that, its all gone in one concentrated position! 

So if you have anything less than $100K, you don't have write a cock and bull story why you are into stocks (REITs) over properties. 

We can all see what's going on....

Most of us prefer real people, real stories.

I would think there's a little more "credibility" listening to someone in their 40s, who have the actual capital to invest in a second rental/investment property, sharing their "crash got sound" experiences and learnings from having their fingers bloodied in both stock (REITs) and property investing. 




  1. REITs are armchair properties investing for diversified passive income. Good for those who dislike paying taxes on rental income. :-)

    1. CW,

      Its perfectly fine to prefer REITs over brick-and-mortar properties, if we have $100K or above. We choose the poison that's best suited for us!

      But if we only have $10K, don't say you prefer REITs over properties when REITs is all your can afford! Its not even a comparison or choice...

      Its like quitting when we are ahead is not the same as quitting ;)

  2. Smol,

    Physical property for those who like hands-on; reits for those who are physically lazier. :P

    Based on my experience, if money is no issue, majority of S'poreans prefer actual residential property to reits. The emotional aspect cannot be beat. Plus it's one of the safest way of leveraged investing. And you don't see your house price move up & down on a minute by minute or day by day basis. Monthly rental collection also provides frequent short-term highs lol.

    Personally, I prefer stocks in general. It's less "messy" if you don't like to deal too much with people. It's more liquid, and you can structure them to be as safe or as wild as you want. They're also much easier to setup & spread around so that it's much easier to run road if necessary lol.

    1. Spur,

      Yup, the biggest advantage of property is the 5 times leverage at super "low" interest rates, especially compared with the interest rates we have to pay for a regular brokerage margin account.

      The return of properties may not be as sexy in percentages, but in dollars and cents, its not something to sneer at! How many dare to put $500K or a million or two into a single stock position?

      The downside for property is once the bei kambing leaves the warm embrace of big daddy's coddling as in buying direct from HDB BTOs, he/she quickly learns buying HDB resale or private properties is no longer "bao jiak"!?

      The moment we got our HDB BTOs, we are sitting on unrealised profits. (Duh! That's the meaning of subsidy!)

      The moment we get involved with HDB resale or private properties, one day I'll break-even becomes shockingly real like newbies investing in stocks (REITs).

      Those of us who prefer to quick-in, quick out (we make lousy lovers), then its stocks for the win!

      For those who prefer Buy-&-Hold, I believed the majority of Singaporeans riding the ComfortDelgro busses or taxis (average, median, middle class?) have done better with properties over stocks since 1965 independence?

      I don't have the statistics to back me up; just anecdotal observation.

      You think why CW so popular and impressive? How many real people real stories we know actually made money from stocks!?

      Most of the "Tarzans" here made it from properties plus well-paying day job ;)

    2. Smol,

      I would say 99.99% of people in our local blogosphere "made it" due to above-median salary. ;)

      That's why after 56 years of S'pore independence, parents still start from 1st principles ... no parent will be eager to train their kids to be investors or to push them into entrepreneurship at the expense of their formal studies.

      I've yet to come across anyone in S'pore who managed to accumulate a base $1M as a salaried worker on less than $3K salary. No, Toto winners don't count lol.

      With cryptos, there might be some individuals who did it, but chances are they're earning at least the median if not higher salaries.

    3. Spur,


      And I thought I'm the "fool" who likes to poke the Emperor is not wearing anything!?

      Compared to your "full nudity" comment above, I'm the shrinking violet!

      That's the reason why so many so called FIRE seekers are burning their evenings and weekends to secure multiple streams of income.

      I mean if others graduate earn $6-8K, while you earn $3-4K, of course must secure multiple streams of income just to catch up!

      Before people start hitting me, I must share I'm same, same.

      I remember my Sec 2 Geography teacher cheerleading me,

      "Jared, if others study 10 minutes understand while you need 7 hours, so be it! Once you understood, there's no difference!"

      I guess youths who are on the 1M65 bandwagon probably had the same Geography teacher as me!?

      But let's not pretend that all things being equal, we would prefer to have 1M35!

  3. "So if you have anything less than $100K, you don't have write a cock and bull story why you are into stocks (REITs) over properties. "


    Don't mind the occasional negative comment out of the usually positive comments I make.

    I agree it is more credible to listen to opinions regarding property from someone who has actual experience in property and REITs.

    However, what is wrong if some youths have strong opinions on an asset class that they are still unable to afford at the moment? What matters is whether they have the right facts, valid reasons and proper reasoning on the issue.

    Is it polite to criticise these youthful opinions as bullshit? I don't know which article you are referring to. If they are misleading the public with wrong information or encouraging others to buy risky stuff irresponsibly, then call them out (that's good intention on your part. You are welcomed to do the same on me) Otherwise, it is rude to make personal remarks like "Don't talk so much if you're can't afford".

    1. hyom,

      All feedback welcomed. Just as long you don't hit the face!

      Its not meant to be polite. Its an "Arguing with the Stop Sign" post ;)

      Not obvious, a bit subtle, but it is what it is. I would be disappointed if my "passion" is not conveyed in the words I've chosen. LOL!

      I thought I've made it quite crystal in my first two sentences:

      "You know the bullshit out there?

      Its not a fair or balanced comparison when right out of the gate, you can't afford properties yet lah! Wink."

      Its like someone extolling the joys of being "single" when the reality is he can't get a date!

      Or a peer smoking everyone during class reunions how he has no desire for management positions when he is "condemned" by his firm...

      I thought I've been polite and kind by not putting links to call out these youths directly?

      Hey! "Don't talk so much if you're can't afford" - that's what you say one hor!

      I'm a better wordsmith than to be so brutal...



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...