In 2011, a Bengaluru man bought a flat everyone thought was overpriced. A decade later, the sale of that same home funded a premium, debt-free apartment in Pune — with cash left over for investments. His story reignites a timeless Indian debate: buy a house or bet on mutual funds?
Akhil Agarwal, a chartered accountant, shared the story on LinkedIn: a neighbor who bought a Bengaluru flat at what seemed like a market peak in 2011. The decision drew skepticism. But years later, the property not only provided a stable home for his growing family — it also appreciated enough to finance an upgraded lifestyle in another city.
When he moved to Pune, the proceeds from selling his old flat bought him a high-end apartment outright, with surplus capital still on hand. “Real estate is about stability for family and peace of mind,” Agarwal notes, challenging the often binary argument between mutual funds (MFs) and home ownership.
The real math, he says, lies in what many miss: rent saved.
While a ₹1 crore flat may require an EMI of ₹60,000–₹70,000 per month, renting the same place might only cost ₹20,000–₹25,000. Over 20–30 years, the rent saved by owning could exceed ₹90 lakh. Add to that the asset’s appreciation — often 3–4x in metros — and the numbers start stacking up in favor of ownership.
Agarwal emphasizes that most MF-vs-house comparisons rest on narrow assumptions. They rarely factor in rent escalation, emotional stability, or how wildly MF returns can vary based on timing and selection.
However, the financial picture isn’t always so clear-cut. In cities with very low rental yields (where the price-to-rent ratio exceeds 20x), renting can be more economical. If the rent saved is aggressively invested in mutual funds at, say, a 12% CAGR, it could outperform modest property gains — particularly in Tier-2 or Tier-3 markets.
Still, the long-term payoff of owning goes beyond numbers. With a fully paid-off home, there’s no rent, no EMI — just a tangible asset and the peace of permanence.