Oops. No, no margin was intended in the stock market - that's a way to get badly burned. But I made the same mistake on the house price increase, so it works out. Just replace "10%" with "20%" and the rest should be right.
> A $50,000 investment growing at 7% annually would be worth approximately $200k after 20 years. In comparison, a $500k house would be worth about $750k with a balance of $240k remaining, assuming 2% inflation and a 7% interest rate on a 30-year note.
But why do you assume that stocks are going up 7% and housing is only going up 2%? (I assumed that houses went up the same amount as stocks, which may not be historically accurate. But only going up a third as much as stocks seems quite low.)
> But why do you assume that stocks are going up 7% and housing is only going up 2%?
I figure a conservative estimate of housing over time is to match the fed target for inflation.
Your initial statement leverages a $50k down payment to make a $500k investment. Stocks can't reasonably do that: a $50k investment is all you have. However, at some point the higher rate of return from stocks will eclipse the value of the house, which was my initial assumption. How long that takes depends on so many unpredictable factors. A 10-year or 50-year mortgage greatly affects the math.
It would be interesting to analyze the data and calculate a rent/buy/invest chart for different geographical areas and various types of investments.
> A $50,000 investment growing at 7% annually would be worth approximately $200k after 20 years. In comparison, a $500k house would be worth about $750k with a balance of $240k remaining, assuming 2% inflation and a 7% interest rate on a 30-year note.
But why do you assume that stocks are going up 7% and housing is only going up 2%? (I assumed that houses went up the same amount as stocks, which may not be historically accurate. But only going up a third as much as stocks seems quite low.)