In my experience, many property investors neglect their own home as a key part of their property asset base, which can be a serious wealth-building mistake.
The 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' books - written by Robert Kiyosaki - make the case that your home is a liability rather than an asset - in this article, I make the case that the opposite is true (sorry Robert! - although I do still generally agree with your focus on income - or 'putting cash in your pocket' views).
What's all this about my home not being an asset?
Robert Kiyosaki, in his inspirational investment book 'Rich Dad Poor Dad', set out a new way of investment thinking about a home i.e. that a home is a liability, since it takes money out of your pocket i.e. is cashflow-negative. An asset, in contrast, puts money in your pocket i.e. it is cashflow-positive.
This thinking was a new way of considering how a home impacts on an investor's finances and - quite rightly in my view - put the investment objective firmly on income generation, rather than uncertain capital appreciation. This is at odds with the financial position of 'Joe Bloggs', in that their home is by far their biggest asset - in terms of capital value - but is also by far their biggest liability - in terms of the cash required to pay for the home. In other words, having a large/expensive home can keep you in the rat race, rather than set you free. Or can it?