I’m guessing this is sarcasm, and yes, it’s not a sure thing, but it’s pretty close. Also, you have to live somewhere so the investment is offset by the rent you’d otherwise be paying.

Owning is more expensive renting generally in the Bay Area. You’ll come out ahead owning if you own for 5-10 years and see appreciation.

But SF housing dropped 30% in 2008. No reason it can’t happen again.

If you look at SF market history, you see mostly rapid growth with short term declines from peaks which are quickly erased.

Is there risk? Sure, but its hard to find a 5-10 year period where you lose even if you hit the bottom of one of the drops, which are usually only a year or two from the peak.

10 years to recover from 2006 peak, not adjusting for inflation.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SFXRSA

Right, so if you pick the absolute worst moment to buy, you still make a profit in 10 years. Sounds like a good bet to me, especially considering you have to live somewhere and pay rent or a mortgage.

No, you’d break even after 10 years, actually less than even due to inflation. Then add on top maintenance, property taxes, opportunity cost of your down payment (market was up 107% over that period).

Again, not saying you can make good money but there is no reason why the opposite can’t happen.

No one is saying it’s a sure thing, but the fact that you have to pick the absolute worst time, and it still is a positive return over ten years, really proves it’s a good bet.

There are exceptions for sure, Detroit for example. But they are exceptions.

And yes, you need a ten year time horizon for the risk to be small. By 2014 the SF home prices were above the peak in 2007.