In the first part of this three-part series, Damien and Jeremy lay the groundwork for comparing property and shares as investment vehicles, sharing their own personal experiences with each before diving into hard numbers in later instalments. Both note upfront that, as property data professionals, they carry some inherent bias, though they've aimed to keep the comparison as balanced as possible, and remind listeners this is general information, not personal financial advice.
How Each of Them Got Started in Shares
Jeremy shares that he first got into shares as a contractor with surplus savings, drawn in by research suggesting shares historically outperformed property. He taught himself through books, seminars, and webinars, eventually writing covered call options over blue-chip stocks. Damien shares a more academic background (a Commerce degree covering finance and accounting, plus a financial planning diploma), but says his real learning came from hands-on experience, including working alongside a financial planner and, in his own words, underperforming in the share market at points, particularly around a purchase made just before COVID. He also touches on the "QPIA" (Qualified Property Investment Advisor) designation, noting it's an unregulated, non-government credential, one he holds himself, but cautions listeners not to treat it as inherently meaningful in isolation.
Which Builds Wealth Faster?
Both agree there's no universal answer, it depends heavily on an individual's comfort level, experience, and education with each asset class, a theme they say the data-driven comparison in Part 2 will explore further.
Leverage and Margin Lending
Jeremy explains that shares can be leveraged too, via margin loans, something he admits he underestimated the availability of, but flags the added risk of margin calls, where a falling share price can force an investor to either inject more cash or have shares automatically sold, often at the worst possible time. By contrast, while property lenders technically retain the right to reassess a loan-to-value ratio if a property's value falls significantly, Jeremy notes this kind of forced action is exceptionally rare in practice compared to how routinely margin calls occur in leveraged share portfolios.
Passive vs. Active Investing
Both note property can suit either a passive ("buy and forget") or more active approach (renovating, or buying and selling to capture growth, a strategy they plan to cover in more depth in a future episode on property trading). Jeremy admits he personally found share investing addictive early on, checking prices daily, before shifting toward a more passive, less time-intensive approach over time. Damien raises index funds (citing Vanguard's VAS as a well-known local example, without receiving any commercial benefit from mentioning it) as a lower-effort way to gain share market exposure without needing to actively pick individual stocks.
Property: The Pros
Jeremy and Damien outline several advantages of property: strong leverage and capital growth potential, more direct control (renovating, subdividing, adjusting rental arrangements) compared to simply choosing which shares to hold, generally more stable and consistent rental income (paid monthly) compared to dividends (typically paid twice yearly, or quarterly for some index funds, and subject to being cut entirely if a company's profits decline), and tax treatment via negative gearing, which Damien is careful to frame as a cash flow aid during the accumulation phase rather than a genuine "benefit" in the sense of pure profit. Both note property's return-on-investment calculations do factor in costs like maintenance and council rates, contrary to some pro-shares arguments, the main cost not captured in typical ROI figures is an investor's personal time.
They also highlight property's relative stability compared to shares (noting shares and crypto both fell rapidly during periods of market stress, while property values are much slower to move), and its function as a form of "forced saving": paying down a principal-and-interest loan builds equity over time in a way that's harder to undermine through impulsive spending, compared to money sitting in a more easily accessible offset or savings account. Damien notes that in his experience with clients, this forced discipline has helped even those who otherwise struggle with impulsive spending (citing occasional examples of clients selling a car to help fund a deposit sooner), while acknowledging that genuinely impulsive spending habits are something no investment structure alone can fully offset.
Refinancing and equity release are also raised as a property-specific advantage (accessing built-up equity for a new purchase, business, or other use), alongside property's generally higher achievable loan-to-value ratios (up to 95% in some cases, albeit with lenders mortgage insurance) compared to typical share margin lending limits, a reflection, in their view, of property's greater relative price stability.
Property: The Cons
On the downside, both note the value of an investor's own time (whether researching independently, engaging a buyers agent, or completing a property course, each still requires meaningful time investment), property's illiquidity (unable to sell a partial share of a property, and generally needing to hold for at least a few years to ride out interest rate or market changes), interest rate sensitivity, high entry and exit costs (stamp duty on the way in, agent commission and potential capital gains tax on the way out), and the emotional impact of tenant or body corporate issues, which they caution against over-weighting relative to a property's actual capital growth performance. Jeremy shares his own difficult first tenant experience (an extended eviction process, property damage on exit, and a disappointing insurance payout), but notes that a subsequent revaluation showing strong capital growth ultimately made that experience feel comparatively minor in hindsight.
Shares: The Pros
Shares offer high liquidity (typically able to access funds within a few business days), easy diversification even with modest amounts of capital, generally low ongoing costs (brokerage fees as low as a few dollars per trade, and low management fees for index funds specifically), flexible entry amounts, no ongoing maintenance requirements, and franking credits (a tax mechanism preventing double taxation on already-taxed company profits distributed as dividends), which Damien notes can be particularly valuable for lower-income earners or those needing more immediate cash flow, though he stresses this is a topic to discuss with a tax accountant rather than general advice. Jeremy shares that dissatisfaction with his own superannuation fund's performance and fees (receiving regular statements detailing losses and charges) was part of what motivated him to take a more active, hands-on approach to his own investments.
Shares: The Cons
On the downside, both note share market volatility, the tendency for diversified index funds to track average market returns rather than genuinely outperform (Jeremy is candid that he doesn't believe he can reliably outperform the market through shares, unlike his approach to property), the temptation toward emotional, reactive trading, limited investor control over the companies held (aside from voting rights, diluted among thousands of other shareholders), and the same capital gains tax exposure that applies to any asset sold at a profit, though they note investors with a "hold forever" mentality (more common, in their observation, among property investors) can defer this liability far longer than an active share trader typically would.
A Look at Specific Index Fund Costs
Damien runs through a few well-known ASX-listed index funds as examples (again, without any commercial affiliation): VAS (top 300 Australian companies, management fee around 0.24%), VGS (over 1,500 global stocks, providing broad international diversification), VTS (broad US market exposure, ultra-low fees, but no exposure outside the US), and VDHG (a fully diversified fund combining Australian and international exposure). He contrasts these low, largely passive management fees with actively managed funds, which can charge significantly more (1–3%) while still often failing to beat index fund returns over the long term. Other minor share-related costs raised include foreign exchange conversion on international holdings, bid-ask price spreads, and slippage on order execution.
Closing Thoughts
Jeremy and Damien summarise Part 1's key takeaway: property's growth is significantly leverage-driven, while shares offer meaningfully greater liquidity and flexibility. Neither asset class is objectively "better" in isolation, the right choice depends on individual goals, risk tolerance, and how much personal time and effort someone is willing (or able) to commit. They preview Part 2, which will dive into historical performance data and direct like-for-like return comparisons, and invite listeners to flag anything they feel was missed in the comments, potentially informing a future fourth instalment.