People look at stock returns over the last 50 years to gauge likely returns over the next 50 (that may or may not be a good idea, but we do it).

People look at bond returns over the last 50 years to gauge likely returns over the next 50 (that may or may not be a good idea, but we do it).

People look at gold returns over the last 50 years to gauge likely returns over the next 50 (that may or may not be a good idea, but we do it).

People look at commodity returns over the last 50 years to gauge likely returns over the next 50 (that may or may not be a good idea, but we do it).

People look at real estate returns over the last 50 years to gauge likely returns over the next 50 (that may or may not be a good idea, but we do it).

Educated investors learn what the MEDIAN return (i.e. what a billion dollar fund would earn with a well diversified portfolio in any of those asset classes) is in each of those asset classes because it gives you an idea of which asset classes are most likely to yield the highest returns.

There are always individual stocks that outperform the stock market, individual bonds that outperform the bond market, and individual pieces of real estate that outperform the real estate market. There are always exceptions.

But educated investors learn how an asset class as a whole has performed historically, and my post is about how stocks as a whole have compared to real estate as a whole. Or how a billion dollars invested in stocks would have done against a billion dollars invested in real estate. Stocks as an asset class crush real estate as an asset class. It's not close.

Everyone is trying to refute that with individual exceptions. But this isn't about individual exceptions. It's about the asset class as a whole. And if someone truly believes that residential real estate will deliver more as a whole than stocks will, then they'll easily make billions of dollars by proving it. But anyone without the billions of dollars to prove it just sounds silly.