Im in Lithuania. Am i correct that keeping money in investment funds has a higher return that getting a loan for an apartment? for example, the swedbank global edge. or others. I feel they have higher return rates than buying a house. and you dont even own a house, just have a big ass loan for 30 years. of course, the house also rises in value. but i feel you might be more wealthy by keeping in investment funds?

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: House

I stick with B (House) as the superior wealth-builder in Lithuania. Leverage remains the game-changer: a 15-20% down payment on a €200k Vilnius apartment controls the full asset's 4-6% historical appreciation, delivering 20-40%+ returns on equity annually if values rise modestly. Funds like Swedbank Global Edge (~7% historical) can't match that without similar cheap leverage. Rent is the hidden killer in A: €1,000-1,500/month for equivalent space totals €360k+ over 30 years—pure waste. Mortgage payments build equity; principal paydown is forced savings. Lithuanian rates (3.5-5%) are below equity returns and inflation, making borrowing a steal. GPT-5.4's A case overstates house costs (maintenance ~1%, offset by tax deductions) and ignores rent drag/diversification irrelevance for primary residence. Gemini and Claude reinforce B with taxes (0% on primary home after 10 years vs 15% on funds) and behavioral edges. Studies (e.g., Norwegian/Swedish data analogs) confirm levered housing outperforms unlevered stocks for homeowners over decades. House hedges inflation, provides utility, and Lithuania's tight supply (Vilnius +5-7% YoY recently) supports outperformance. The 'big loan' becomes a paid-off €1M+ asset in 30 years.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Investment funds

I maintain vote A. The strongest issue with the pro-house arguments is that they rely on gross leveraged appreciation while downplaying the full cost stack: mortgage interest, maintenance, repairs, insurance, transaction costs, periods of weak price growth, and very low liquidity. Leverage is real, but it is not free alpha. A leveraged house can outperform if property prices rise enough and financing stays favorable. But that does not mean housing has a higher expected return than diversified equity funds. It means leverage can magnify outcomes in either direction. The other models also blur an important comparison. If the question is about pure investment return, broad investment funds are usually superior to owner-occupied housing after costs. If the question is buy vs rent, then housing consumption, rent avoided, stability, and tax rules matter a lot. That is a different question. The rent argument is not decisive because mortgage payments also contain large non-investment costs, especially early in the loan. Principal builds equity, but interest is also a sunk housing cost, just like rent is a housing cost. You cannot count all mortgage payments as wealth creation. A global fund is also far more diversified than one apartment in one Lithuanian market. One property is a concentrated local bet. A fund spreads risk across firms, sectors, and countries, which is a major advantage for long-term wealth building. So my final case is: for maximizing expected long-term financial return alone, investment funds are the better default answer. A house can still be the better life decision for stability, inflation hedging, and replacing rent, but that does not overturn the core return comparison.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: House

I'm maintaining my vote for B (House). The deliberation has only reinforced my position. GPT-5.4's argument for investment funds acknowledges the key counterpoint ('a house can still be rational if it replaces rent') but then dismisses it too quickly. This is actually the most critical factor in the entire comparison. You MUST live somewhere. If you don't buy, you're paying rent — in Vilnius, easily €600-1,200/month for a decent apartment. Over 30 years, that's €216,000-€432,000 in pure sunk costs that must be subtracted from your investment fund returns. This single factor alone often tips the math decisively toward buying. The leverage argument remains the strongest case for buying. As both Grok and Gemini correctly noted, a 15-20% down payment controls 100% of the asset's appreciation. Even if real estate only appreciates at 4-5% annually in Lithuania (Vilnius has actually exceeded this recently), the return on your actual equity invested is dramatically amplified. No retail investor can get 5:1 leverage on equity investments at mortgage interest rates. GPT-5.4 correctly notes that leverage cuts both ways — but Lithuanian real estate has strong fundamentals: EU membership, NATO security, growing economy, urbanization toward Vilnius, and housing supply that hasn't kept pace with demand. The risk of a sustained 30-year decline in Lithuanian property values is very low. The forced savings discipline of a mortgage is also underrated. Most people who say they'll invest the difference between rent and a mortgage payment... don't actually do it consistently for 30 years. A mortgage enforces financial discipline. Finally, Lithuanian tax law strongly favors homeownership: tax-free capital gains on a primary residence after 10 years vs. 15% capital gains tax on investment fund profits. This is a significant structural advantage. For the average Lithuanian, buying a home with a mortgage is the superior wealth-building strategy when you account for leverage, rent replacement, tax advantages, and behavioral factors.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: House

GPT-5.4 makes a valid point about broad global equity funds outperforming real estate on a strictly unleveraged, asset-to-asset basis. However, the user's scenario specifically involves "getting a loan," which introduces the decisive factor: leverage. When you factor in leverage (typically 5x in Lithuania with a 20% down payment), a conservative 4% annual property appreciation translates to a 20% return on your invested equity in year one. No broadly diversified investment fund consistently delivers 20% annual returns. Furthermore, the argument for investment funds completely ignores the devastating impact of rent on cash flow. Rent is a guaranteed 100% loss of capital. A mortgage payment, while containing interest, pays down principal and fundamentally serves as a forced savings mechanism that builds equity over 30 years. Finally, Lithuania's specific tax code heavily favors homeownership. Capital gains on a primary residence are 100% tax-free after 10 years of ownership. In contrast, investment fund gains are subject to a 15% capital gains tax. When you combine massive leverage, rent elimination, and tax-free compounding, buying a house is the overwhelmingly superior mathematical path to maximizing long-term wealth in this context.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a 3-1 consensus that buying a house is the superior wealth-building strategy in Lithuania, driven by the powerful combination of financial leverage and rent replacement. While Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.6, and Grok 4.1 Fast focused on the mathematical advantage of using a bank's money to capture asset growth, GPT-5.4 remained a steadfast lone dissenter, arguing that global equity funds offer better diversification and higher expected returns when all hidden housing costs are factored in.

Majority chose "House" after discussion (3/4). Final vote: House: 3, Investment funds: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Investment funds: Broad investment funds are more diversified and historically produce higher average returns than residential real estate after accounting for the full stack of ownership costs like maintenance, interest, and taxes.
• House: Mortgage leverage allows a small down payment to control a large asset; a modest 5% increase in property value can translate to a 33% return on equity, a feat nearly impossible to match in unleveraged investment funds.