For most of us, even those at risk from negative equity, life would continue much as before because the mortgage would still have to be paid, no matter what our homes were worth.

This makes investors the ones to watch because at least they would have a choice. Would they panic and seek to dump their properties all at once, making a bad situation even worse? Would they have the wherewithal to weather the storm, staying invested in the hope of better times to come?

It could be a very long wait according to a new analysis by the Central Bank. It found that, if house price growth slowed to 4% a year, buy-to-let investors would have to wait five years to break even. If growth was 2%, the investor would not make a profit for 33 years. And if the property market stagnated and levelled off completely, the investor would have to wait more than 50 years to see a return on his investment.

This is why new research by EBS Building Society and estate agents Gunne Residential gives some grounds for encouragement. It found that most buy-to-let investors are in for the long haul, with property viewed as a pension by 71% of those surveyed and as a nest egg for the children by 51%.

This makes them less likely to sell up at the first sign of trouble but raises a whole new set of concerns about the wisdom of putting all their eggs in one basket, especially as three quarters of investors surveyed had fewer than three properties with close to half of them pinning their hopes on a single buyto-let investment.

However, the secret of good investing lies in hedging your bets, not betting your family's financial future on what looks like a sure thing.

After a property boom that has lasted more than a decade, that advice is all too easily cast aside. Some 90% of those surveyed by EBS and Gunne believe bricks and mortar offers the best in long-term returns. So why would they waste their money by investing some of it elsewhere?

This unshakeable belief in property is quite dangerous because it leads to over reliance on a single asset class. It is also unwittingly based on a false assumption.

Contrary to popular belief, the stock market remains the best long-term home for your money according to the Central Bank's analysis. It found that stock values averaged 13.3% growth each year since 1988, compared to 10.6% for residential property.

Of course it has not been plain sailing. The stock market is a topsy turvy place with the bull run of the 1990s being quickly followed by the dotcom bust. Property, by contrast, has enjoyed a steady upwards climb with relatively few nasty surprises.

And the tables turn in favour of property when rents and dividends are taken into account. By reinvesting dividends, stock market investors could have boosted their average return to more than 16% a year. But buyto-let investors got almost 20% a year after pocketing the rent.

Nevertheless, you have to question why property fans believe these spectacular returns can be repeated into the future.

Some 43% of those surveyed by EBS and Gunne expect to buy more property over the next 12 months. That's roughly the same proportion as this time last year, proving that the steady creep of interest rates in the meantime has not blunted investors' appetites.

It's also a big vote of confidence in the future of the property boom.

According to the Central Bank's analysis, anybody getting into the property market today will end up subsidising their tenants, including a 29% shortfall between rental income and mortgage payments on a newly-built buy-to-let investment.

If the tenants aren't paying their way, the only way that new investors can make money is if property values continue to defy gravity. And that's an outcome that not even the most bullish property pundits are expecting.