Poor families pay bigger share of their income in taxes than wealthy families ($10,000, jobs)

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

if our stock certificates burn we can get them replaced too.

stock certificates do not call at 2 am with no heat or clogged toilet issues.

stocks don't take months to close or involve attorneys to write contracts

i never had to evict my stocks

stocks do not require me to pay months of real estate taxes while waiting to sell.

i have been a real estate investor for more than 25 years here in nyc. now that i am retiring we are finishing selling off all holdings.

last thing i want in retirement is the headaches of tenants and properties.

I'm not saying being a landlord isn't without its hassles. But considering you say you were a real estate investor for 25 years, why slam it as a bad investment? It's part of a diversified portfolio.

Besides, it's not going to matter if the stock certificates are extant if some moron runs the company into the ground. I see completely worthless shares of stock for sale in antique stores all the time. Someone originally bought those shares "knowing" that they'd be financial winners.

I like real estate. It's something I'm good at. That doesn't mean I dislike index funds. I like them, too. For different reasons.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by lycos679

That's actually irrelevant. It could be higher or could be lower, but ultimately we are talking about a current landlord that is losing money on a property.


None of that matters and was covered when I said the landlords will exit the market until it is profitable again. If we are talking about a situation where renting a property is a losing proposition the landlords will exit until they can make money again.

In landlording, the cost of the property is irrelevant. Mkay.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by Petunia 100

In landlording, the cost of the property is irrelevant. Mkay.

If you say so.

[vision33r]

Very few make it big by being a fulltime landlord, it's a job not a business. If you wanted to be a business then you start a property management business.

With that said, renting out a property usually pays for the bills hardly will make you rich. You want to get rich, find an asset class that's more agile to invest in.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I'm not saying being a landlord isn't without its hassles. But considering you say you were a real estate investor for 25 years, why slam it as a bad investment? It's part of a diversified portfolio.

Besides, it's not going to matter if the stock certificates are extant if some moron runs the company into the ground. I see completely worthless shares of stock for sale in antique stores all the time. Someone originally bought those shares "knowing" that they'd be financial winners.

I like real estate. It's something I'm good at. That doesn't mean I dislike index funds. I like them, too. For different reasons.

the difference is real estate is not a passive investment it is owning a real brick and mortar business . while I loved my real estate investments money wise and had one of the country's biggest real estate moguls as a partner and teacher I would never call real estate passive investing unless you were just a silent partner in a venture..

to really make good money at real estate I learned it is really a professionals game if you are not just going to try to flip some houses or want to just collect some rent.

but even doing that it is a job unto itself and in fact it is akin to buying a business. in one case you work for your money and in the other your money works for you.

comparisons to passive investing are like comparing stocks to working.

we invested in special situation kind of real estate where there were big rewards but it took someone with both connections to the deals and knowledge to work the deals and navigate things.

we owned a bunch of co-op apartments with rent stabilized tenants paying below market rents in a prestigious co-op across the street from central park . being they were baby boomers we figured a 100k buyout offer for the lease would get some to move so we could sell these 7 figure apartments. we were right and out of 9 apartments 13 years ago when we bought in to this private venture only 2 remain today

we also owned things like commercial lease rights on big storefronts on 7th ave and central park south . we sold those lease rights in march to an investor group for 8 figures in a landmark deal that was so spectacular it is all over the real estate news. we held a 10% stake in that and a 25% stake in the apartments which our son also gets a 25% stake as a partner so family wise we are in for 50%. these are the kinds of things we would never have been privy to without professionals like our partner BERNARD SPITZER. he just passed away 2 months ago ..

while we have 2 apartments left with tenants who are not taking buyouts and are at break even rent the money made on the deals we did, cover a lifetime of these 2 tenants staying.

if it was only about owning rental property the headaches vs rewards are two small for me to want to even do it.

nothing is a problem until it's a problem and no matter how carefully you screen tenants eventually the big 3 get you . DIVORCE-JOB LOSS- ILLNESS. then their problems become your problems.

those 3 are every landlords worst nightmare and can burn through cash like wild fire if evictions and damage have to be dealt with.

because of the size of these deals we can have the luxury of douglas elliman handle all aspects of the properties and their needs so they are actually passive at this point.

but the offers still stand to try to get the tenants out and sell the apartments so we are done with them and tenants in retirement.

the point is you can never compare those kinds of deals to what small landlords typically do or earn but equities on the other hand give everyone access to the same investments. anyone can select a pro they like and trust and follow their instructions in equities and do quite well long term just buying funds or even indexing a well balanced portfolio.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

the difference is real estate is not a passive investment it is owning a real brick and mortar business . while I loved my real estate investments money wise and had one of the country's biggest real estate moguls as a partner and teacher I would never call real estate passive investing unless you were just a silent partner in a venture..

to really make good money at real estate I learned it is really a professionals game if you are not just going to try to flip some houses or want to just collect some rent.

but even doing that it is a job unto itself and in fact it is akin to buying a business. in one case you work for your money and in the other your money works for you.

comparisons to passive investing are like comparing stocks to working.

we invested in special situation kind of real estate where there were big rewards but it took someone with both connections to the deals and knowledge to work the deals and navigate things.

we owned a bunch of co-op apartments with rent stabilized tenants paying below market rents in a prestigious co-op across the street from central park . being they were baby boomers we figured a 100k buyout offer for the lease would get some to move so we could sell these 7 figure apartments. we were right and out of 9 apartments 13 years ago when we bought in to this private venture only 2 remain today

we also owned things like commercial lease rights on big storefronts on 7th ave and central park south . we sold those lease rights in march to an investor group for 8 figures in a landmark deal that was so spectacular it is all over the real estate news. we held a 10% stake in that and a 25% stake in the apartments which our son also gets a 25% stake as a partner so family wise we are in for 50%. these are the kinds of things we would never have been privy to without professionals like our partner BERNARD SPITZER. he just passed away 2 months ago ..

while we have 2 apartments left with tenants who are not taking buyouts and are at break even rent the money made on the deals we did, cover a lifetime of these 2 tenants staying.

if it was only about owning rental property the headaches vs rewards are two small for me to want to even do it.

nothing is a problem until it's a problem and no matter how carefully you screen tenants eventually the big 3 get you . DIVORCE-JOB LOSS- ILLNESS. then their problems become your problems.

those 3 are every landlords worst nightmare and can burn through cash like wild fire if evictions and damage have to be dealt with.

because of the size of these deals we can have the luxury of douglas elliman handle all aspects of the properties and their needs so they are actually passive at this point.

but the offers still stand to try to get the tenants out and sell the apartments so we are done with them and tenants in retirement.

the point is you can never compare those kinds of deals to what small landlords typically do or earn but equities on the other hand give everyone access to the same investments. anyone can select a pro they like and trust and follow their instructions in equities and do quite well long term just buying funds or even indexing a well balanced portfolio.

I'm surprised there isn't an insurance product available to landlords for that. Those are known risks, and while not quantifiable by individual landlords, are certainly quantifyable over large numbers by insurers.

I love those huge real estate deals where the buyer makes more in the deal than a dozen burger flippers make in their entire lifetimes.

"But the buyer created all that value!"

Looks to me like a boatload of tenants just lost a boatload of value because that's where the dollars are going to come from.

[mathjak107]

they are sooooooo common it would be a losing deal for an insurer. it is almost a 100% guaranteed payed out claim for them at some point but i am sure someone for a price will offer it.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

they are sooooooo common it would be a losing deal for an insurer. it is almost a 100% guaranteed payed out claim for them at some point but i am sure someone for a price will offer it.

If such an insurance product were on the market, insurers would get really good at quantifying those risks, which in turn would change tenant selection practices.

[mathjak107]

it is almost impossible to screen for the big three. our mgmt. company sticks a microscope up the butt of those that apply. but those 3 issues come right from left field after the fact they are tenants.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by freemkt

I'm surprised there isn't an insurance product available to landlords for that. Those are known risks, and while not quantifiable by individual landlords, are certainly quantifyable over large numbers by insurers.

I love those huge real estate deals where the buyer makes more in the deal than a dozen burger flippers make in their entire lifetimes.

"But the buyer created all that value!"

Looks to me like a boatload of tenants just lost a boatload of value because that's where the dollars are going to come from.

or those tenants avoided a lot of risk and loss if things don't pan out. it is always great Monday morning quarterbacking a deal that worked out.