9 ms·

He paid for the business in instalments. The monthly instalments were less than the monthly profits. I think that is what he is saying.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
Yeah, but it doesn't clickbait as much... Should have been "I got paid to buy a business from someone"
- IncRnd 6y ago
  I sold my last house for more than I purchased it. Next week I'll create an investor's newsletter about how to purchase a house and get paid to live in it!
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Oh god, I’d wager you just described 1000 different real real estate newsletters:P My biggest pet peeve is these “real estate investors” who don’t understand investing in any serious way and so falsely misrepresent renting out a property as “passive income” (how laughable) and list their “investment returns” without any noting of the massive leverage it took to get those returns. If you buy a house with 5% down and the housing market goes up 50% in 5 years you’re not an investment genius, you just took a risky highly leveraged bet and it paid off (and housing bets at least in America do tend to pay off thanks to the insanity of central-bank-attributable rock bottom interest rates as well as the essentially propagandistic way that Americans are taught to think about real estate) So not sure if I have a coherent point here but I wish people would (a) actually adjust for inflation when telling their “I bought at X and sold at the 1.5x 4 years later” stories and (b) would also show some awareness of how insanely leveraged people often are on their houses.
    - toast0 6y ago
      > If you buy a house with 5% down and the housing market goes up 50% in 5 years you’re not an investment genius, you just took a risky highly leveraged bet and it paid off (and housing bets at least in America do tend to pay off thanks to the insanity of central-bank-attributable rock bottom interest rates as well as the essentially propagandistic way that Americans are taught to think about real estate) I agree with most of what you're saying, but if your mortgage is non-recorse (which is the case for purchase first-mortgages in CA at least), I wouldn't say it's a risky bet. If it goes poorly, you can walk away and the bank gets your house (and you get imputed income maybe). You only lose your down payment and any equity, which at 5% down is probably less than the loss the PMI took. It's not the same riskyness as say buying stocks on margin, or selling short or writing uncovered options.
      - scubbo 6y ago
        Having just bought a house in California - what is this "5% down" you speak of?
        astura 6y ago
        FHA loans have a down payment requirement that can be as low as 3.5% https://www.hud.gov/buying/loans https://www.hud.gov/buying/loans Also, VA loans let you buy a house with no down payment. (For veterans)
        IncRnd 6y ago
        NOW, in my much-anticipated newsletter I will reveal all the tips and game-winning strategies I've discovered over the course of my high-powered investment career. If you act today, I will include the secrets of how to get a 5%-down mortgage without any PMI!! This is a hidden method used exclusively by the super-rich to get even richer. Once you learn what I will teach, you will live worry-free, regardless of what pitfalls you encounter in life. BONUS! The government doesn't want you to know this secret method to get a 15% piggyback loan, but I will show you this super-simple almost "devious" extra double-tranche, rolling mortgage financial instrument - and even more. Why wait to order, when you could make them all wait on you?
        6y ago
  - neonological 6y ago
    No that's different. The more accurate analogy is if you can charge rent to tenants in the property in a way that covers all expenses. Then other then the down payment the tenants are basically letting you leverage an appreciating asset at no cost to you. I do this now in California and with the essentially 0% interest rate I refinanced the loan and now I generate a profit every month from leveraging an asset on top of the appreciating value. Rent is the black hole people can use to leach resources away from productivity. Simply by taking a loan and redirecting the economic output of people who live on my property towards the loan I benefit without producing any utility for the economy at all. That is in a sense "Free." If the loan is paid off, that money gets redirected towards me again with minimal effort on my part.
    - kbutler 6y ago
      > I benefit without producing any utility for the economy at all. You provide the tenants the opportunity to have housing without the risks of ownership (the down payment and risk of declines. See 2008, for example). It's not for everyone, and moving to ownership may be more beneficial long-term, but it is needed for some and at some times.
      - neonological 6y ago
        I didn't own property, then I went to a bank to apply for a loan. Now my tenants pay for that loan with rent. They are paying the bank interest and money for my loan on a property I never lived in nor have the money to purchase without a loan.
        kbutler 6y ago
        Did you compel them to make that deal? Did you deceive them to make that deal? You had the credit and financial resources to commit to that purchase. Some reasons they may choose to rent instead: - lack capital - lack credit rating - not willing to commit for the long-term - not want to be responsible for maintenance - not willing to assume risk in the real-estate market I know people who are financially literate and have capital who choose to rent. I chose to purchase, but came to realize that “home ownership” is two-way — to some extent you’re also owned by the home.
- devoutsalsa 6y ago
  I’m dating a non-native English speaker. This morning I was explaining clickbait to her. First I had to explain bait. Next I explained the title of “The Witcher Season 2 Netflix release date” [1] Finally I shared with her the content “Those looking for news of a final release date for The Witcher Season 2 on Netflix will be disappointed to learn that no date has been set just yet.” [1] https://www.shacknews.com/article/123143/the-witcher-season-2-netflix-release-date https://www.shacknews.com/article/123143/the-witcher-season-...
  - pimlottc 6y ago
    Surely they have clickbait in other languages?
    - tomashubelbauer 6y ago
      There's not a good word (that I know of) for this in my language (Czech). People who can speak English use the English word. People who don't just say something along the lines of the article author being a bastard.
      - ElFitz 6y ago
        In French some say "putaclic". But it’s not widespread outside of the "old-ish" French tech sphere and, being composed of the word "pute", a slang for prostitute, quite vulgar...
      - 177tcca 6y ago
        So, less reframing and cutesy phrases, perhaps? Things might have been a lot different if instead of saying LinkedIn was using "dark patterns" to grow, they were being pieces of shit.
        tpm 6y ago
        Different for sure, but better or worse? Here in our culture we don't really do reframing and cutesy phrases. But the public discourse is very vulgar and pessimistic, and this is not a fad, it's like that for decades already.
philshem 6y ago
> The monthly instalments were less than the monthly profits. From my reading of the article, it wasn’t monthly profit but rather monthly revenue. From the article > Because the business was already doing more than our monthly payments to the seller, as long as the business didn’t implode (it didn’t ), we’d be able to buy the business with its own revenue.
rwmj 6y ago
He's paying in time and risk, rather than money. He has to run the company, which presumably is a full-time job, and there's a risk it implodes before he has fully paid for it (which it didn't, but it might have done).
- ilaksh 6y ago
  I assume he hired one or two people from overseas and paid them the bare minimum to keep the business just operational so that he could pocket as much as possible.
  - justinmares 6y ago
    Nope, we did not do this. We invested a ton in the business and didn't take a dollar out (besides small salaries) for 2.5 years. More context here - https://microconf.gen.co/justin-mares/ https://microconf.gen.co/justin-mares/
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- imtringued 6y ago
  His only risk is being unable to pay, the deal being canceled and ultimately losing payments (which according to him were paid for by the business generating a profit, so he never risked his own money). Since the seller lent the business to him he didn't even have to provide upfront capital.
isatty 6y ago
Right, when put that way it does not make sense (even if the original owner had to put time and effort into it) - but the original owner got to keep a fat chunk of equity + monthly payments so it's somewhat of a fair deal.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago

Yeah, but it doesn't clickbait as much... Should have been "I got paid to buy a business from someone"

IncRnd 6y ago
I sold my last house for more than I purchased it. Next week I'll create an investor's newsletter about how to purchase a house and get paid to live in it!
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Oh god, I’d wager you just described 1000 different real real estate newsletters:P My biggest pet peeve is these “real estate investors” who don’t understand investing in any serious way and so falsely misrepresent renting out a property as “passive income” (how laughable) and list their “investment returns” without any noting of the massive leverage it took to get those returns. If you buy a house with 5% down and the housing market goes up 50% in 5 years you’re not an investment genius, you just took a risky highly leveraged bet and it paid off (and housing bets at least in America do tend to pay off thanks to the insanity of central-bank-attributable rock bottom interest rates as well as the essentially propagandistic way that Americans are taught to think about real estate) So not sure if I have a coherent point here but I wish people would (a) actually adjust for inflation when telling their “I bought at X and sold at the 1.5x 4 years later” stories and (b) would also show some awareness of how insanely leveraged people often are on their houses.
  - toast0 6y ago
    > If you buy a house with 5% down and the housing market goes up 50% in 5 years you’re not an investment genius, you just took a risky highly leveraged bet and it paid off (and housing bets at least in America do tend to pay off thanks to the insanity of central-bank-attributable rock bottom interest rates as well as the essentially propagandistic way that Americans are taught to think about real estate) I agree with most of what you're saying, but if your mortgage is non-recorse (which is the case for purchase first-mortgages in CA at least), I wouldn't say it's a risky bet. If it goes poorly, you can walk away and the bank gets your house (and you get imputed income maybe). You only lose your down payment and any equity, which at 5% down is probably less than the loss the PMI took. It's not the same riskyness as say buying stocks on margin, or selling short or writing uncovered options.
    - scubbo 6y ago
      Having just bought a house in California - what is this "5% down" you speak of?
      - astura 6y ago
        FHA loans have a down payment requirement that can be as low as 3.5% https://www.hud.gov/buying/loans https://www.hud.gov/buying/loans Also, VA loans let you buy a house with no down payment. (For veterans)
      - IncRnd 6y ago
        NOW, in my much-anticipated newsletter I will reveal all the tips and game-winning strategies I've discovered over the course of my high-powered investment career. If you act today, I will include the secrets of how to get a 5%-down mortgage without any PMI!! This is a hidden method used exclusively by the super-rich to get even richer. Once you learn what I will teach, you will live worry-free, regardless of what pitfalls you encounter in life. BONUS! The government doesn't want you to know this secret method to get a 15% piggyback loan, but I will show you this super-simple almost "devious" extra double-tranche, rolling mortgage financial instrument - and even more. Why wait to order, when you could make them all wait on you?
      - 6y ago
- neonological 6y ago
  No that's different. The more accurate analogy is if you can charge rent to tenants in the property in a way that covers all expenses. Then other then the down payment the tenants are basically letting you leverage an appreciating asset at no cost to you. I do this now in California and with the essentially 0% interest rate I refinanced the loan and now I generate a profit every month from leveraging an asset on top of the appreciating value. Rent is the black hole people can use to leach resources away from productivity. Simply by taking a loan and redirecting the economic output of people who live on my property towards the loan I benefit without producing any utility for the economy at all. That is in a sense "Free." If the loan is paid off, that money gets redirected towards me again with minimal effort on my part.
  - kbutler 6y ago
    > I benefit without producing any utility for the economy at all. You provide the tenants the opportunity to have housing without the risks of ownership (the down payment and risk of declines. See 2008, for example). It's not for everyone, and moving to ownership may be more beneficial long-term, but it is needed for some and at some times.
    - neonological 6y ago
      I didn't own property, then I went to a bank to apply for a loan. Now my tenants pay for that loan with rent. They are paying the bank interest and money for my loan on a property I never lived in nor have the money to purchase without a loan.
      - kbutler 6y ago
        Did you compel them to make that deal? Did you deceive them to make that deal? You had the credit and financial resources to commit to that purchase. Some reasons they may choose to rent instead: - lack capital - lack credit rating - not willing to commit for the long-term - not want to be responsible for maintenance - not willing to assume risk in the real-estate market I know people who are financially literate and have capital who choose to rent. I chose to purchase, but came to realize that “home ownership” is two-way — to some extent you’re also owned by the home.
devoutsalsa 6y ago
I’m dating a non-native English speaker. This morning I was explaining clickbait to her. First I had to explain bait. Next I explained the title of “The Witcher Season 2 Netflix release date” [1] Finally I shared with her the content “Those looking for news of a final release date for The Witcher Season 2 on Netflix will be disappointed to learn that no date has been set just yet.” [1] https://www.shacknews.com/article/123143/the-witcher-season-2-netflix-release-date https://www.shacknews.com/article/123143/the-witcher-season-...
- pimlottc 6y ago
  Surely they have clickbait in other languages?
  - tomashubelbauer 6y ago
    There's not a good word (that I know of) for this in my language (Czech). People who can speak English use the English word. People who don't just say something along the lines of the article author being a bastard.
    - ElFitz 6y ago
      In French some say "putaclic". But it’s not widespread outside of the "old-ish" French tech sphere and, being composed of the word "pute", a slang for prostitute, quite vulgar...
    - 177tcca 6y ago
      So, less reframing and cutesy phrases, perhaps? Things might have been a lot different if instead of saying LinkedIn was using "dark patterns" to grow, they were being pieces of shit.
      - tpm 6y ago
        Different for sure, but better or worse? Here in our culture we don't really do reframing and cutesy phrases. But the public discourse is very vulgar and pessimistic, and this is not a fad, it's like that for decades already.

philshem 6y ago

> The monthly instalments were less than the monthly profits. From my reading of the article, it wasn’t monthly profit but rather monthly revenue. From the article > Because the business was already doing more than our monthly payments to the seller, as long as the business didn’t implode (it didn’t ), we’d be able to buy the business with its own revenue.

rwmj 6y ago

He's paying in time and risk, rather than money. He has to run the company, which presumably is a full-time job, and there's a risk it implodes before he has fully paid for it (which it didn't, but it might have done).

ilaksh 6y ago
I assume he hired one or two people from overseas and paid them the bare minimum to keep the business just operational so that he could pocket as much as possible.
- justinmares 6y ago
  Nope, we did not do this. We invested a ton in the business and didn't take a dollar out (besides small salaries) for 2.5 years. More context here - https://microconf.gen.co/justin-mares/ https://microconf.gen.co/justin-mares/
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 6y ago
His only risk is being unable to pay, the deal being canceled and ultimately losing payments (which according to him were paid for by the business generating a profit, so he never risked his own money). Since the seller lent the business to him he didn't even have to provide upfront capital.

isatty 6y ago

Right, when put that way it does not make sense (even if the original owner had to put time and effort into it) - but the original owner got to keep a fat chunk of equity + monthly payments so it's somewhat of a fair deal.