3 ms·

On the flip side: your retirement is dependent on the property listed in the article and if no improvements are needed while it generates a return… It means yo

On the flip side: your retirement is dependent on the property listed in the article and if no improvements are needed while it generates a return… It means you’re a landlord! Congratulations!! Give yourself a round of applause. By not maintaining it, you are electing to keep cash flow high and profits secured. The overall commercial market has negative numbers so even if said REIT is down 2.65% it’s hedged together with numerous properties in a nice geographic arbitrage opportunity to minimize losses. Is that really… So bad?

SoftTalker 1mo ago
A common saying is that in real estate, you make your money when you buy and when you sell, in other words not paying too much and timing sales to profit from appreciation. Cash flow from rent isn't a big part of it, that normally covers taxes, insurance, debt servicing, and maintenance but not a whole lot more.
- rootsudo 1mo ago
  Well, it depends, if you’re going for ARV and appreciation, cash flow helps a lot on holding costs. While I agree with you make money when you buy/biggerpockets quotes, you want cash flow to minimize holding costs.
- senordevnyc 1mo ago
  I've been investing in real estate for decades now, and the version I've always heard is that you make your money when you buy, NOT when you sell. Also, other than flippers, the vast majority of real estate investors I'm familiar with are very focused on buying cashflow, and prefer never to sell. It might be different for REITs focused on CRE, I'm not as familiar with that space, but my impression has always been that the biggest and most successful investors are buying and holding, not trading.
  - SoftTalker 1mo ago
    Sure, if you're buying in an appreciating area, and the rent covers the carrying costs, you hang on to the property as long as you can or as long as the property is a still a good fit in your diversification plan. I would agree that not overpaying is probably the most important thing.
pessimizer 1mo ago
"You" is 10-20% of the US population. The rest will never actually be able to afford retirement, and have no investments. 50% don't have an extra $500 in case of emergency. ----- edit: Financial literacy is not alchemy. It will not turn nothing into something. The price of consumption has risen insanely (which is why investors have done well), and consumption when you're poor is not optional or luxurious. There may not be a lump of labor, but there's certainly a lump of profit. 10-20% are getting it because 80-90% aren't. We've created a society (again) where the people who are most rewarded are the people who work the least (and whine about school lunches and shoplifting.) Owning things is the most lucrative job you can have; if you exclusively own and don't work, you've probably doubled or tripled your worth since covid. If you worked, at the lowest end you've barely kept your head above water, and at the middle end you've lost major ground. If you're either lower or middle, and you've accidentally reproduced (bad morlock!), you could be homeless after a single bad year. With the high end worker is where you need financial literacy; but if you don't spend enough, how are you going to meet the people who will employ you or find you employment? Assuming they'll come to your small, somewhat comfortable apartment far from your workplace, attracted by your home haircuts and your cheap but comfortable clothes to have conversations about your used books, houseplants, and how hard your bicycle commute is, over one of your three board games - you've now moved the meter to 15-25% being able to retire one day. Congratulations, you're European. Objection 1: Are you arguing that it's not 50%, but more like 40%? Because I wasn't attempting an exact figure. You gave me a median number that is under a Bronze plan's deductible. One concussion will bankrupt them. A childbirth will throw them into $10Ks of debt. Objection 2: 50% report owning stock in a Gallup poll. Which I'm sure includes at least 60% saying "you mean some money in a 401K?" Temp services have 401Ks that some people have contributed hundreds of dollars to.
- rootsudo 1mo ago
  You’re not wrong, but the onus is on whom to provide financial literacy? The majority of people do have a safety net in social security. While it may not be enough, it is something…
  - nemomarx 1mo ago
iamnothere 1mo ago
True, but in exchange, “you” (meaning all of us) get to live out our lives and eventually our retirements in a bland, depressing facsimile of a culture.
- foxglacier 1mo ago
  I think neighborhoods that people see as "authentic" are actually bland and depressing to their initial occupants. Do you want to live in an outdoor museum for the sake of strangers who don't suffer the routine grind of poor-people life to come and oggle your mismatched buildings and blankets hanging over your balconies? There are some historic districts in my hometown and it's because they have rows of posh but nearly identical houses. That uniformity seems to be part of what makes now gives them "character".
  - iamnothere 1mo ago
    Well yes, but usually the initial occupants are long gone before these neighborhoods become desirable. Some of it is rarity, but some of it is the presence of design elements (whether accidental or intentional) that aren’t present in most newer developments. Sometimes this is because the buildings have features that aren’t allowed under newer building codes, and sometimes the neighborhoods grew organically when land was cheaper, so you get better walkability or interesting neighborhood features. It’s possible to build new buildings that are interesting and unique, it’s just very expensive under current zoning, building codes, and local planning restrictions, so it usually only happens with very large structures.
roughly 1mo ago
I suppose that depends on whether you’re a human being who lives in a place or an investment portfolio. A lot of people seem to get confused about that, but as a human, I’d say I don’t love the outcomes here, personal portfolio performance notwithstanding, and might be willing to trade a couple points for a living environment that isn’t a soulless budget management exercise. As a friend once noted, the great thing about living in America instead of Europe is that we make enough money living here instead of there that we’re able to take vacations in Europe.
AngryData 1mo ago
Landlords and rent seeking are bad by its very nature. Sometimes people got no choice but to deal with the devil, but the fact that people that are forced to deal with the devil doesn't make it any better or acceptable to increase dealings with the devil.

SoftTalker 1mo ago

A common saying is that in real estate, you make your money when you buy and when you sell, in other words not paying too much and timing sales to profit from appreciation. Cash flow from rent isn't a big part of it, that normally covers taxes, insurance, debt servicing, and maintenance but not a whole lot more.

rootsudo 1mo ago
Well, it depends, if you’re going for ARV and appreciation, cash flow helps a lot on holding costs. While I agree with you make money when you buy/biggerpockets quotes, you want cash flow to minimize holding costs.
senordevnyc 1mo ago
I've been investing in real estate for decades now, and the version I've always heard is that you make your money when you buy, NOT when you sell. Also, other than flippers, the vast majority of real estate investors I'm familiar with are very focused on buying cashflow, and prefer never to sell. It might be different for REITs focused on CRE, I'm not as familiar with that space, but my impression has always been that the biggest and most successful investors are buying and holding, not trading.
- SoftTalker 1mo ago
  Sure, if you're buying in an appreciating area, and the rent covers the carrying costs, you hang on to the property as long as you can or as long as the property is a still a good fit in your diversification plan. I would agree that not overpaying is probably the most important thing.

pessimizer 1mo ago

"You" is 10-20% of the US population. The rest will never actually be able to afford retirement, and have no investments. 50% don't have an extra $500 in case of emergency. ----- edit: Financial literacy is not alchemy. It will not turn nothing into something. The price of consumption has risen insanely (which is why investors have done well), and consumption when you're poor is not optional or luxurious. There may not be a lump of labor, but there's certainly a lump of profit. 10-20% are getting it because 80-90% aren't. We've created a society (again) where the people who are most rewarded are the people who work the least (and whine about school lunches and shoplifting.) Owning things is the most lucrative job you can have; if you exclusively own and don't work, you've probably doubled or tripled your worth since covid. If you worked, at the lowest end you've barely kept your head above water, and at the middle end you've lost major ground. If you're either lower or middle, and you've accidentally reproduced (bad morlock!), you could be homeless after a single bad year. With the high end worker is where you need financial literacy; but if you don't spend enough, how are you going to meet the people who will employ you or find you employment? Assuming they'll come to your small, somewhat comfortable apartment far from your workplace, attracted by your home haircuts and your cheap but comfortable clothes to have conversations about your used books, houseplants, and how hard your bicycle commute is, over one of your three board games - you've now moved the meter to 15-25% being able to retire one day. Congratulations, you're European. Objection 1: Are you arguing that it's not 50%, but more like 40%? Because I wasn't attempting an exact figure. You gave me a median number that is under a Bronze plan's deductible. One concussion will bankrupt them. A childbirth will throw them into $10Ks of debt. Objection 2: 50% report owning stock in a Gallup poll. Which I'm sure includes at least 60% saying "you mean some money in a 401K?" Temp services have 401Ks that some people have contributed hundreds of dollars to.

rootsudo 1mo ago
You’re not wrong, but the onus is on whom to provide financial literacy? The majority of people do have a safety net in social security. While it may not be enough, it is something…
- nemomarx 1mo ago

iamnothere 1mo ago

True, but in exchange, “you” (meaning all of us) get to live out our lives and eventually our retirements in a bland, depressing facsimile of a culture.

foxglacier 1mo ago
I think neighborhoods that people see as "authentic" are actually bland and depressing to their initial occupants. Do you want to live in an outdoor museum for the sake of strangers who don't suffer the routine grind of poor-people life to come and oggle your mismatched buildings and blankets hanging over your balconies? There are some historic districts in my hometown and it's because they have rows of posh but nearly identical houses. That uniformity seems to be part of what makes now gives them "character".
- iamnothere 1mo ago
  Well yes, but usually the initial occupants are long gone before these neighborhoods become desirable. Some of it is rarity, but some of it is the presence of design elements (whether accidental or intentional) that aren’t present in most newer developments. Sometimes this is because the buildings have features that aren’t allowed under newer building codes, and sometimes the neighborhoods grew organically when land was cheaper, so you get better walkability or interesting neighborhood features. It’s possible to build new buildings that are interesting and unique, it’s just very expensive under current zoning, building codes, and local planning restrictions, so it usually only happens with very large structures.

roughly 1mo ago

I suppose that depends on whether you’re a human being who lives in a place or an investment portfolio. A lot of people seem to get confused about that, but as a human, I’d say I don’t love the outcomes here, personal portfolio performance notwithstanding, and might be willing to trade a couple points for a living environment that isn’t a soulless budget management exercise. As a friend once noted, the great thing about living in America instead of Europe is that we make enough money living here instead of there that we’re able to take vacations in Europe.

AngryData 1mo ago

Landlords and rent seeking are bad by its very nature. Sometimes people got no choice but to deal with the devil, but the fact that people that are forced to deal with the devil doesn't make it any better or acceptable to increase dealings with the devil.