Just turned 22 with ~$70k saved — should I use leverage to buy a ~$400k apartment in central Stockholm or stay 100% in index funds?
I just turned 22 and live in Sweden. I’m trying to think through a FIRE/coast-FIRE path while also being realistic about housing.
I currently have around 700k SEK saved/invested (~$70k). For the next 1.5 years I’ll be studying while still receiving salary, with most major living costs covered. I expect to save around 15k SEK/month (~$1.5k/month) and end up with roughly 1.1M SEK liquid (~$110k).
After that, I’m considering buying an apartment in central Stockholm, inside the toll ring, for around 4M SEK (~$400k).
That would mean roughly:
600k SEK down payment (~$60k)
500k SEK left invested/saved (~$50k)
Loan-to-income around 3.4x, based on my estimates
The main question: is this smart leverage, or unnecessary risk at my age?
I understand that global index funds are cleaner, more liquid, and probably better as a pure investment. But housing is not just an investment decision. I still need to live somewhere.
The alternative is likely either renting centrally for around 18–20k SEK/month (~$1.8–2k), or living farther out / lower standard. If owning lands around 12.5–15k SEK/month (~$1.25–1.5k) including fees, interest and amortization, then buying starts to look reasonable to me.
I’m not assuming the apartment beats the stock market. My thinking is more:
housing I actually want + moderate leverage + still investing on the side
I would still aim to invest roughly the same amount as the monthly housing cost in the beginning, so I wouldn’t be completely house-poor or all-in on real estate.
The upside case is that by around 30, I either have a larger housing equity base and can upgrade, or I keep the apartment, continue investing, and move closer to coast-FIRE.
Where do you think the flaw is?