re: 401K v. Real Estate

This doesn't really answer your question, but my input would be an either/or on 401K -v- Real Estate misses what I consider to be a vital part of anyone's portfolio. That is to say, why not have some real estate in addition to securities in a 401K. I own both. I think have have about every assets class represented. I've read everything on why a heavier weighted real estate portfolio outperforms a 401K. I'm personally still more weighted in securities than I am in real estate. There are some pitfalls to real estate tat aren't necessarily inherent to owning a mutual fund. It's difficult to balance a real estate portfolio geographically. It's difficult to balance commercial, residential, office space, warehouse space, multi family, single family. Essentially it does pay a dividend. Essentially there are certainly tax advantages in real estate. But essentially there is also the dilemma of what it is worth when you really need to sell it. Which is the same as a security. But harder to mange due to liquidity.

So I guess my answer is I don't personally care what wins the cage fight between real estate and a 401K, I think everyone should probably own some of each. Securities are easier. Notwithstanding the many on here and elsewhere they say it is not. Securities are more liquid. Moral and morale hazards exist in both. Fannie is getting into buying paper of single family dwellings held as rentals. That probably will be high geographic in impact, but it will have an impact.

Anyway, another novel by myself. Just some thoughts I have based on my experience with both.