...and you thought Tysons had traffic now.

[Steve85]

real estate is not a good investment
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/real_estate/0704/gallery.stocks_v_realestate.moneymag/index.html">http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/rea ... index.html</a><!-- m -->

one thing they fail to mention is the liquidity of stocks versus a home.

I think a more realistic case where the investor, aka landlord, prices the property in-line with current values based on what home buyers are paying would have very different results.

yes. the results would be a house sitting unrented.

sellers dont set prices, buyers do.

I'm not sure I get it...I referenced buyers, not sellers.

My point is if buyers are willing to shell out 2600/mo for a particular house a landlord would charge near that much in rent for a comparable house to maximize return. And depending on when he entered the market would have to just to break even. It's news to me if landlords are routinely providing a 40% discount to buying in the housing market (again, given suitable comps).

I'm not sure why the house would sit unrented if priced nearer the going rate in the neighborhood than the example provided??