Sure, but based on historical events with housing in "great" areas, this can and does happen. If you buy right before a bubble, it can even happen sooner -- in a couple years. A 6% fund is not going to even have the chance to do that.

> In markets with a lot of excess inventory, some landlords can't find tenants.

A given, per the article, is a "great" area. Great areas are always in demand. I have not yet lived in an area that lacked for tenants.

If you buy a good stock right before a bubble, you can double your money quickly, too (ask me about INTC or CSCO or AMZN in 1998). The point is, what's going to happen under likely circumstances? More importantly, what's going to happen in a rational market?

Home prices are coming down from the largest asset bubble in US history. If you've never thought about homeownership before 1995 or so, you might assume that home prices always increase by at least 5% per year. You'd be wrong, however. Homes in the US are historically an under-performing investment; over the long-term, their returns approximately match the rate of inflation.

There are exceptions to this rule, but I think that the parent comment is generally well-taken: it's not guaranteed that your home is going to double in value in five years. (In fact, in some parts of the country, there's a real chance that your home will be worth 50% less in five years' time.)

In high-demand areas, it's likely housing prices will see another bubble.

> it's not guaranteed that your home is going to double in value in five years.

We're all in agreement on that.

The point I was making is that real estate bubbles recur and so there's always the possibility of a large, rapid gain, which doesn't happen with mutual funds (correct me if I'm wrong there).

> In fact, in some parts of the country, there's a real chance that your home will be worth 50% less in five years' time.

The article specifically stipulates a "great" area. So we're not talking about parts of the country that aren't in demand. :)