Property versus Shares: which is a better investment in 2025?

For those on the hunt to find the perfect investment opportunity in 2024, two of the main sources of potential investment income to consider are shares, and the property market. The latter, currently, is gaining momentum again in Australia, coupled with stabilising interest rates, and inflation on a downward trend compared to this time last year.

On the other hand, if entering the property market is out of the question right now and you’d rather start small, investing in shares is a great alternative to consider. Naturally, there are always going to be dangers and risks associated with any type of investment, be it property or shares, but with some research and guidance, you’ll be better suited to make a decision.

“One thing all investors should do in the beginning is understand the asset class they want to invest in. If your personal interest is in building a property portfolio, then researching property investing and understanding the ins and outs is key,” David Pelligra, director & mortgage broker at Wealth Point Lending, says.

“The same goes for shares. If you are someone who enjoys the nuances of the share market and the inner workings of a publicly listed company, then again, researching that particular part of the market is important. My biggest piece of advice when investing is to speak with professionals that understand the market you are wanting to invest into.”

So, in 2024, which is your best option for starting your investing journey? What are the pros and cons of each? These are the questions you must ask before investing your money in either sector.

What are the pros of investing in shares?

The idea of investing in shares as a means for potentially earning high returns has long enticed those looking to increase their capital growth over a long period of time. Shares also present the opportunity for ownership in companies with shareholders enjoying particular voting rights and dividend potential. Those who invest in shares often have a degree of flexibility and control, which is a comfort when investing large sums of money. For example, should you wish to access your funds at any point in time, often you can do so instantaneously. This cannot be done with property.

“Shares are a liquid asset, meaning you can sell parts or all of your portfolio, allowing for quick access to cash,” Pelligra says.

When investing in shares, individuals — novice or otherwise — should consider adding blue chip shares to their portfolio. These are shares issued by a large corporation, often one of notoriety, with an excellent reputation and experience in market capitalisation. Blue chip shares are often safe and risk-adverse, however any financial gain is usually in the long-term.

What are the cons of investing in shares?

As Warren Buffett once said, “the first rule of an investment is don’t lose (money). And the second rule of an investment is don’t forget the first rule. And that’s all the rules there are.”

Despite their advantages, it’s essential to remember that investing in shares also carries with it risks, including the potential for the loss of capital. Price volatility is also another important factor to consider — where shares prices rise and fall rapidly over the space of days or months. Those who invest in high risk shares — although seeking higher returns in a short amount of time — have to be prepared that they could lose a large sum of money depending on which way the market swings.

Naturally, when endeavouring to invest in shares, it’s important to conduct thorough research. This includes seeking advice from financial professionals before making large investment decisions.

What are the pros of investing in property?

Somewhat a no-brainer, investing in property offers a number of benefits, from capital growth (should the property rise in value over time), through to reduced volatility (historically, property prices only go up). If you’re planning on owning a property as an investment—and plan on leasing it—you can generate continual cash flow to cover your property expenses. Unlike shares, investing in property is a physical endeavour, in that it’s something people can see and touch, which is always favourable.

For those that are looking long-term and don’t necessarily need the instant cash flow (yield) renting a property can provide, investing in property for capital gain is also a great way to increase your finances considerably. Depending on where you buy, residential properties have the potential to rise in value in a relatively short period of time, and as a result, can offer owners a significant gain should they look to divest at the right time.

“Investing comes with an inherent risk, but the key is to look at past performance. Property, for example, has consistently performed in Australia for the last 30 years, so you could feel quite safe if you were investing,” says Pelligra.

“Property is also a physical asset that you can either live in, or earn an income from if you are to rent it out.”

What are the cons of investing in property?

There are a number of potential pitfalls that come with investing in property. No one can predict where the property market is going to go, whether interest rates will rise or fall, and if you plan on renting your property, whether your tenants do the right thing in the way of upkeep, making regular payments, and so forth. Properties can also have additional costs attached, such as maintenance, repairs and upgrades, as well as insurance. For those looking to gain capital on an investment property they don’t live in, you also need to consider the capital gains tax, which naturally reduces savings and investment incentives.

Of course, there are ways of mitigating the risks of investing in property by doing thorough research, and speaking to the professionals who can assist you on your journey.

—

All commentary made is considered general advice. It is recommended to seek financial advice from a professional before making decisions associated with investing.

For months, I have been one of the few commentators openly stating what the data was already showing: property prices had begun to fall.

The latest figures confirm it. Cotality’s June 1 Home Value Index showed Sydney values down 0.9 per cent in May and Melbourne down 0.8 per cent. ANZ has cut its national capital city forecast to 2.8 per cent growth this year, down from 4.8 per cent in April. CBA has also downgraded its outlook.

So the Federal Budget arrived at the worst possible time, with the wrong prescription, to treat a problem it fundamentally misunderstands.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has suggested that making it easier for first-home buyers to get a fair crack at auctions is a good thing. The reality is more complicated.

Driving property prices down does not simply hand a discount to first-home buyers. It affects the 1.4 million Australians employed by the property sector, the 67 per cent of household wealth tied to housing, and the state government revenues that fund schools, hospitals and roads.

The government had a choice: tackle supply constraints, link migration growth to housing completions and reduce spending, or increase taxes on property investors. It chose the latter.

Property is an economic pillar

Property is not simply another investment class. It contributes about 10.6 per cent of GDP directly, up to 15 per cent when flow-on effects are included, and employs more than 1.4 million Australians. It also generates more tax revenue than mining and underpins consumer confidence through the wealth effect.

Against that backdrop, the Budget removed negative gearing from established residential properties purchased after Budget night and replaced the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with cost-base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax from July 1, 2027.

The government calls this fairness. I call it a misdiagnosis.

The grandfathering trap

The policy is also internally contradictory.

Properties purchased before Budget night are grandfathered, allowing existing investors to retain full negative gearing and capital gains tax benefits until they sell. The logical response is simple: hold.

That means fewer properties coming onto the market, fewer rental listings and reduced transaction volumes.

The result is likely to be higher rents, reduced stamp duty revenue and further inflationary pressure at a time when the Reserve Bank remains focused on bringing inflation under control.

The government is attempting to fight inflation with one hand while fuelling it with the other.

Who really owns investment properties?

What is often lost in this debate is who Australia’s property investors actually are.

According to ATO data, 71 per cent of investors own just one investment property. They are not wealthy property moguls.

They are teachers, nurses, police officers and small business owners who have purchased an investment property as part of their retirement strategy.

For many Australians, property remains the most tangible and trusted pathway to building long-term wealth.

Removing the incentives that supported that investment does not hurt a billionaire developer. It hurts ordinary Australians trying to secure their financial future.

Investors aren’t the affordability problem

It is true that housing affordability has deteriorated significantly over the past two decades. However, negative gearing is not the primary cause.

Research by economists Ross Kendall and Peter Tulip found planning and zoning restrictions significantly increase housing costs.

Their work showed zoning lifted detached house prices well above marginal construction costs in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

Low interest rates, strong population growth, chronic under-supply and restricted access to development-ready land have all played a much larger role in pushing prices higher.

Punishing private investors does nothing to address these structural issues.

The Build-to-Rent advantage

At the same time the government is reducing incentives for Australian investors, it has created a more attractive tax environment for foreign institutional capital through Build-to-Rent projects.

Under current arrangements, foreign institutional investors can access a 15 per cent withholding tax rate through Managed Investment Trusts, accelerated depreciation benefits and exemptions from the new negative gearing restrictions.

State governments have added further concessions, including land tax reductions and exemptions from foreign investor surcharges.

Australian mum-and-dad investors receive none of these advantages.

The cumulative effect is striking. Foreign institutions can access a range of tax benefits unavailable to Australian private investors, while local investors lose concessions they have relied upon for decades.

This is not solving the housing crisis. It risks transferring ownership of Australia’s rental housing stock from local investors to offshore institutions.

Why state governments should worry

There are already signs these changes are affecting the credit cycle.

Major banks are removing negative gearing benefits from serviceability calculations for investment loans.

As market conditions soften, lenders become more cautious and investors find it harder to secure finance.

That matters because property transactions are a major source of state government revenue.

In NSW alone, transfer duty generates more than $12 billion annually. If transaction volumes fall significantly, the impact on state budgets will be substantial.

The consequences extend beyond stamp duty to GST collections, payroll tax receipts and land tax revenue.

The 95 per cent loan trap

There is another aspect of the Budget that concerns me.

The government has expanded first-home buyer deposit guarantee schemes, allowing eligible purchasers to buy with a five per cent deposit backed by the Commonwealth.

The intention is admirable. The timing may not be.

If prices in Sydney and Melbourne fall further, buyers entering the market with 95 per cent loan-to-value mortgages could quickly find themselves in negative equity.

They become trapped. They cannot sell without crystallising a loss, while the taxpayer guarantees the loan and the bank remains protected.

That is not wealth creation. It is a debt obligation.

After three decades working with debt and investment, I would never encourage my own children to borrow at a 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio.

A policy built on politics

The government had an opportunity to address the housing crisis by encouraging supply, reforming planning systems and reducing development costs.

Instead, it chose Robin Hood politics.

The optics may be appealing, but the economics are not.

Australians may ultimately pay the price through higher rents, weaker investment and a future in which an increasing share of the nation’s housing stock is owned by offshore institutions rather than local investors.

Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.