5 ms·

You can't live in your stock portfolio.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> can't live in your stock portfolio Of course you can. You sell or harvest dividends. The same as living in an investment property forces you to give up its cash yield.
- Izkata 3y ago
  They said "in", not "on".
- pdonis 3y ago
  > You sell or harvest dividends. But then you're not owning anything and renting it out, which was what the GGP was talking about.
- AYBABTME 3y ago
  Your stock portfolio isn't intrinsically useful. A house is intrinsically useful, even if you rent it out: you can do an owner-move-in, and you secured your ability to live somewhere. If the stock market crash, you can't do anything useful with your stock portfolio. If the housing market crash, you can do something useful with the house: live in it. I don't argue that you can rent with the yield of your portfolio. I'm just saying that when the music stops, a house is useful and a portfolio of stock isn't. So to me, owning a house is worth it over having a souped up stock portfolio. And if you rent out your house, even if in a high CoL area like the SF Bay area, the long term yield can be comparable to a stock portfolio. And during that time, you have an anchor in one of the most economically productive area of the world.
enos_feedler 3y ago
you can collect dividends on it and allocate some of that cash flow to renting while the stocks grow in value. I currently have an 8% yield on cost that I am living off of and renting $1800/mo in Palo Alto. Been there for over 5 years and they aren't raising rent on me. The game with renting is not pay current market rates.
- almost_usual 3y ago
  > I currently have an 8% yield on cost that I am living off of and renting $1800/mo in Palo Alto. That seems really cheap for Palo Alto.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > you can collect dividends on it and allocate some of that cash flow to renting while the stocks grow in value. But then you're not buying any property and renting it out, which was what the GGP was talking about.
  - enos_feedler 3y ago
    I was refuting the idea that you can't live in your stock portfolio. You can if the dividend yield is less than the rent.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > I was refuting the idea that you can't live in your stock portfolio. That post was not made in a vacuum. It was made in response to a particular claim, which was not as simple as "oh, sure, you can own stocks and pay your rent out of the dividends".
- jjav 3y ago
  > The game with renting is not pay current market rates. If you can somehow do that, sure! If you can get a service below market rates, take advantage. But surely it's obvious that by definition, very few people are going to be able to luck into such a position. So it's not broadly applicable advise. > renting $1800/mo in Palo Alto [...] and they aren't raising rent on me That's the deal of the century in terms of housing. Yes you're way better off renting on those terms. Since nobody else can find a rent so low in Palo Alto, let alone one that won't go up, for most people reality is different.
  - enos_feedler 3y ago
    I don't think its all that special. its a matter of staying in one spot. Don't rent for a big corporation. have a good relationship with the owner, etc. Its partly luck, but its also partly putting yourself in a position to get that. If you move around every 12 months then yes you will pay market rates. But you also take advantage of the location flexibility that renting provides. its a tradeoff.

> can't live in your stock portfolio Of course you can. You sell or harvest dividends. The same as living in an investment property forces you to give up its cash yield.

Izkata 3y ago
They said "in", not "on".
pdonis 3y ago
> You sell or harvest dividends. But then you're not owning anything and renting it out, which was what the GGP was talking about.
AYBABTME 3y ago
Your stock portfolio isn't intrinsically useful. A house is intrinsically useful, even if you rent it out: you can do an owner-move-in, and you secured your ability to live somewhere. If the stock market crash, you can't do anything useful with your stock portfolio. If the housing market crash, you can do something useful with the house: live in it. I don't argue that you can rent with the yield of your portfolio. I'm just saying that when the music stops, a house is useful and a portfolio of stock isn't. So to me, owning a house is worth it over having a souped up stock portfolio. And if you rent out your house, even if in a high CoL area like the SF Bay area, the long term yield can be comparable to a stock portfolio. And during that time, you have an anchor in one of the most economically productive area of the world.

enos_feedler 3y ago

you can collect dividends on it and allocate some of that cash flow to renting while the stocks grow in value. I currently have an 8% yield on cost that I am living off of and renting $1800/mo in Palo Alto. Been there for over 5 years and they aren't raising rent on me. The game with renting is not pay current market rates.

almost_usual 3y ago
> I currently have an 8% yield on cost that I am living off of and renting $1800/mo in Palo Alto. That seems really cheap for Palo Alto.
pdonis 3y ago
> you can collect dividends on it and allocate some of that cash flow to renting while the stocks grow in value. But then you're not buying any property and renting it out, which was what the GGP was talking about.
- enos_feedler 3y ago
  I was refuting the idea that you can't live in your stock portfolio. You can if the dividend yield is less than the rent.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > I was refuting the idea that you can't live in your stock portfolio. That post was not made in a vacuum. It was made in response to a particular claim, which was not as simple as "oh, sure, you can own stocks and pay your rent out of the dividends".
jjav 3y ago
> The game with renting is not pay current market rates. If you can somehow do that, sure! If you can get a service below market rates, take advantage. But surely it's obvious that by definition, very few people are going to be able to luck into such a position. So it's not broadly applicable advise. > renting $1800/mo in Palo Alto [...] and they aren't raising rent on me That's the deal of the century in terms of housing. Yes you're way better off renting on those terms. Since nobody else can find a rent so low in Palo Alto, let alone one that won't go up, for most people reality is different.
- enos_feedler 3y ago
  I don't think its all that special. its a matter of staying in one spot. Don't rent for a big corporation. have a good relationship with the owner, etc. Its partly luck, but its also partly putting yourself in a position to get that. If you move around every 12 months then yes you will pay market rates. But you also take advantage of the location flexibility that renting provides. its a tradeoff.