We need to teach basic finance in high school instead of calc. Its ridiculous.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Yep, this way of thinking, especially right now when trades have become FREE on the majority of platforms, is crazy. Literally anyone can download Robinhood or sign up with Fidelity and be trading in hours. If you have $100, you can make money off of stocks. It just takes time and repeated investment.
Then you understand it better than I do that landlords are not the cause of the housing crisis in the US, as evidenced by the fact that other countries like China and Japan also have landlords and robust RE investment markets, without the housing shortage.
There may be other ethical implications in the landlord-tenant relationship, as others have pointed out, but the whole "landlords are responsible for the housing crisis!" angle is nonsense. And if you're already onboard with the idea of capitalism, then real estate investing is not a bridge too far.
That's what I keep telling my county clerk when they send me tax bills!! Why don't they get it??
This is a weird comment considering there are many Native people, for example, that believe this.
Its just property law. I didn't make it, I just have to follow it.
Yup. I had a friend who got a small 10-15K(after tax) inheritance. They were 21/22? so I just suggested putting some away in savings for emergency and the rest in index funds (since there's so much more compounding that happens if you start in your 20s), but they were vehemently against it because 'stocks are bad and you could lose it all' and I couldn't convince otherwise. Guess they got the mentality from family.
That's how it is today in some part of the world where the prices got too high. But in many cases, it is about people who bought their property years ago, finished to pay it and moved to either a smaller or bigger place that they pay, while they rent the one they acquired decades ago.
I've never wanted to deal with the hassle of possibly being called at 11pm to say a toilet isn't working or something like that. I just put all my money into a few stocks and index funds. Much easier that way.
Legally you can own US/Canada land though, whereas in China you genuinely can't and have to lease it from the government....
For apartments, housing co-ops are my go-to solution there - a building is owned by an "entity," and you can own/rent a share of that entity, which entitles you to an apartment and a say in the building's administration.
It's not perfect and can lead to other issues, like exclusionary renting practices and that sort of thing, but it's the closest thing you can get to communal ownership of land in modern cities.
See, the solution here is to just buy stock in a rental company or rental management company. Totally guilt-free!
There's no way you're losing everything in an index fund. Just LOL at your friend. Diversification is good!
There's no way you're losing everything in an index fund. Just LOL at your friend. Diversification is good!
The answer in a market where real estate isn't bonkers competitive is put 20% down, invest the rest, and your gains on stocks/funds will beat the 10% difference long term. But putting 30% down on a house can be a competitive advantage in a hot market. I put down like 33% on my house currently and that's one thing that helped me get it ahead of 20 other buyers.
Sure? But that doesn't stop people from having different beliefs.
Now, I don't know if that poster genuinely believes this or is just being sarcastic.
Again, I'm not disagreeing that it's legal. Just pointing out that many Native people believe no one can nor should own land.
I don't want to derail the thread further so I'll just reiterate that OP should not be a landlord.
I wouldn't invest in real estate because I think it's gross and exploitative. If you had money, put it in stocks, or an IRA or something.
It is less exploitative than buying property as an investment and using political clout to protect your investment to the widespread detriment of society as a whole.
Which is riskier? Index funds or real estate? Real estate at least you have equity and there has to be a major crash (not impossible) for you to lose everything in real estate? Genuine question since I'm not a finance nerd
It's good to diversify but depending on your goals rental income may not be aggressive enough of an investment.
Average ROI is something like 10% which is going to be fairly similar to slapping it an S&P500 fund but if you are in the early stages of your life being more aggressive than that in the market is generally better. As you get closer to retirement passive income from rentals is a very good thing.
Over a long enough horizon they are going to be very very similar in risk/returns but short-term they both pose risks that may be detached from each other. Either market can crash, go stagnant, or go parabolic and how long you want the money tied up and your age should be a huge factor in how you invest.
Average ROI is something like 10% which is going to be fairly similar to slapping it an S&P500 fund but if you are in the early stages of your life being more aggressive than that in the market is generally better. As you get closer to retirement passive income from rentals is a very good thing.
Over a long enough horizon they are going to be very very similar in risk/returns but short-term they both pose risks that may be detached from each other. Either market can crash, go stagnant, or go parabolic and how long you want the money tied up and your age should be a huge factor in how you invest.
I think necessities for human life should not be in "for profit" industries or capacities. Things like housing, basic nutritious food, medical care, etc. So on that principle alone I couldn't condone someone becoming a landlord.
But yes, the rule of thumb has always been to diversify what you can.
But yes, the rule of thumb has always been to diversify what you can.
Well considering the poll results, people think its a better idea. Secondly to giving it away to Fat4all, and then into stocks. I think the results are going to hold...
Long term both markets go up. People who sat on their houses after 2008 got their value back over time. Same with those who held onto their stock portfolio instead of panic selling during the crash.
The main issue is if the crash happens at a point where you can't afford to wait. People in their 60s who were banking on selling their house in 2008 to pay for their retirement got fucked. Same for those who needed to cash out their investments.
If you're young it usually pays to hold.
Well this thread looks exactly like I imagined it would. Real advice mixed in with hopes and dreams.
I would say Real Estate is a solid investment normally, but right now the market is funky. At least it is here in Texas. I would hold off and then jump in if it were me.
I would say Real Estate is a solid investment normally, but right now the market is funky. At least it is here in Texas. I would hold off and then jump in if it were me.
Vacancies and maintenance costs can totally wreck your day. Lots of old buildings can suddenly need repairs/roofs/siding/structural changes that come out to $100k+ bills, which can totally fuck the balance sheet.
Running rentals really do have costs. Maintenance + property taxes, even on properties that are vacant, can be a disaster.
Buying now can also be kind of dicey, as the market on everything is kind of fucked. Due to the supply chain issues there isn't as much new construction as there should be, especially in cheaper areas where materials are a more significant chunk of the price. That means that there is a lot of upward price pressure on existing properties, which likely will fade a bit as the supply chain stabilizes.
Well im in my late 30s with both stocks and real estate. Should I sell my property and put all in stocks just so I can sleep good at night with a clear conscience?
Well there's always going to be rental property that isn't publicly owned. Would people prefer to rent from rental companies instead?
This is true for just about any investment where you try to grow your money and not just in property. Is the suggestion then not to invest money at all if this is the criteria that we hold as why we shouldn't do something?
In my experience, rental companies are so much better than smaller buildings. A rental high-rise usually has maintenance people outright on staff so stuff gets fixed within 24H. When I was a grad student, I was in terrible places-- underheated units so frost was on my window, my roof started to collapse, mice and ants, and worse. Heat, AC, cable, and internet get a bulk rate that is like 25% of what I'd be paying separately.
At least in the US, urban and suburban NIMBYs have done incomparably more to totally fuck the housing market than landlords.
I am relatively poor and have no tenants or investment property but I have a coworker who owns 3 homes using that method and I don't think of her as a "scummy landlord". She's just playing by the rules of capitalism. There are tons of tiny landlords like her out there. You are probably are friends with some of those people.
I rent out a house to international(usually anyway i think) MA students, it goes through the local university and another managing company. As far as I know it's just 1 year lets. Pays out for 11 months of the year. Occasionally have to pay for repairs and sometimes a new tv/fridge/beds.
It's not much money but it keeps me ticking over. Have to keep fairly reserves for any large repairs like the roof. You could probably make far more money on stocks but I guess the risk is greater.
It's not much money but it keeps me ticking over. Have to keep fairly reserves for any large repairs like the roof. You could probably make far more money on stocks but I guess the risk is greater.
Not a facetious question. What is the difference between a landlord and a mom and pop bodega owner? Both offer you services you need to survive. Unless you don't consider paying property taxes, maintenance, improvements, and generally being liable for whatever happens to a property to be services. There's a reason why real estate is risky and not "guaranteed profit lol". You very well could put more money into the property than you get back out. The tenant gets shielded from all of that.
Is it because property should be socially owned? Well, I say so should the means of food production. But we don't really have the same fuck the supply chain comments here. Any business is just a middle man who set up a thing and now just makes money off the upcharge. But landlords in particular "do nothing"?
Is it because property should be socially owned? Well, I say so should the means of food production. But we don't really have the same fuck the supply chain comments here. Any business is just a middle man who set up a thing and now just makes money off the upcharge. But landlords in particular "do nothing"?
if you're considering investing in real estate to benefit yourself you should probably reexamine your personal and political beliefs to determine whether they're internally consistent or if there's a certain amount of money where you say "fuck you, got mine."
The core of this discussion isn't about who's better at their job, but the morality of it.
It's completely hit or miss. I've had good big rental companies and terrible ones. My last one before I bought a house gaslit us when we said there was a terrible noise issue from our upstairs neighbors and presented video and audio evidence of them screaming at each other at 2AM. It was a disaster dealing with them.
This forum is absolutely ridiculous when it comes to property ownership.
"Fuck landlords, give that money to massive corporations in the form of vested interest in stocks so they continue to drive needless growth to provide returns on said stocks."
Missing the fucking forest for the trees.
"Fuck landlords, give that money to massive corporations in the form of vested interest in stocks so they continue to drive needless growth to provide returns on said stocks."
Missing the fucking forest for the trees.
No, not at all. People are free to invest their money how they please. If they are comfortable with they are perpetuating, that's on them. I have the means but have no intention of being a landlord in my life. Just the same, there are certain industries or companies that I could invest in, but I choose not to do so.