Submitted by LongjumpingShot t3_109x09s in baltimore
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j419mpu wrote
Reply to comment by EfficiencySuch6361 in What does eviction prevention accomplish. by LongjumpingShot
That’s a poor analogy. Stocks don’t cost money. There’s no loss or gain until you sell.
Real estate costs money. Many of these places have a mortgage and even if they don’t you need property tax and maintenance etc.
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j41bvfs wrote
It’s close but no cigar. Would have to view the relative lack of success of an individual’s stock choice relative to overall market success as a loss for stock to work
Maybe a leveraged position that actively costs money is closer
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41m27c wrote
Or maybe u are both missing the point that wasting $10,000 on a realtor before making back renovation costs vs waiting 1-2 years for bad policy to be fixed isn’t as cut and dry as these ppl who clearly have zero landlord experience seem to think
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j41nbek wrote
Yes, on the individual level people will make that choice.. When you look at the market at large, which is either growing or shrinking, there is no pause.
The entire market doesn't go on hold because the people you know are on pause. The larger market influences people at decision points of where to deploy capital.
Your friends have deployed capital and are willing to take a short term loss for a long term gain. (Likely forgoing gains already incurred). Some individuals are choosing different areas of the market to invest in. Some individuals are getting out of the market entirely.
Again you are having trouble separating personal experience from market forces.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41tn6l wrote
A larger entity would have even greater tolerance for such circumstances. U continue to fail to understand that there are more options than just selling secondary properties when times get tough
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41lth4 wrote
TIL owning stocks is free!!!
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41m7fh wrote
Yes it is.
Buying them costs money. Owning them is free.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41twsj wrote
>Stocks don’t cost money
No I read that they don’t cost money
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41uiq7 wrote
To maintain.
Did you read the context or no?
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41uygs wrote
U are acting like individual stock picking skill is the ultimate bell weather of stock market success when the fact is that the federal reserve’s interest rates policies move the market more than any other factor by indisputably huge margin. So no I didn’t “read the context” bc what u are saying is wrong and doesn’t make sense, and u very obviously don’t know hardly anything about real estate rental property investments while trying to sound like the foremost expert
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41vwpt wrote
Who are you talking to because I literally said none of that
Which you’d known if you read it.
It’s ok to be wrong dude. You don’t have to resort to making shit up.
Animanialmanac t1_j4256p3 wrote
What maintenance? Have you seen some of the empty rentals in Baltimore? Some are so poorly maintained they collapse, killing people. Holding on to property until better city leaders are in place and the property increase in value is called real estate speculation, people do it all over Baltimore.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j4292ff wrote
Ahhh yes I forgot that every vacant property isn’t receiving any maintenance at all city-wide
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j425z3w wrote
The solution is repossession not writing that off.
Animanialmanac t1_j427x8u wrote
Do you mean receivership?
The city can’t repossess a house, a bank could file foreclosure proceedings and then file for possession if the property is mortgaged, most of these are not mortgaged.
Receivership is a long expensive process in the city. At the end of the process the city will own the property. The city also fails at maintaining the city owned vacant properties.
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j428bgf wrote
Lol. Ok dude. Way to honesty engage.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments