This isn’t really a source though, it’s requiring the other commenter to prove the point you made.
Anecdotally, I know people who buy single family homes and rent them for profit. My 3 bed, 2 bath single-family home has a $3,000/monthly mortgage, I could easily rent it for more than $3,500 (closer to $4,000). Take out 10% for maintenance fees, and I net $200 a month.
> Anecdotally, I know people who buy single family homes and rent them for profit. My 3 bed, 2 bath single-family home has a $3,000/monthly mortgage, I could easily rent it for more than $3,500 (closer to $4,000). Take out 10% for maintenance fees, and I net $200 a month.
In other words, you could not make a profit.
You need to consider all costs, not just mortgage. Taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, downtime (when it sits empty between renters).
If your mortgage is $3000 and you can only rent it for less than $4000, you can't make a profit.
I go through this math often while daydreaming of renting my house and retiring somewhere cheaper. There isn't any scenario I can come up with where it would actually be profitable.
That shows exactly the point, 10% for maintenance isn't enough, doesn't cover taxes, insurance, and other costs, and netting $200/month on a (assumed) $450k+ house isn't great, that's less than the interest earned on a deposit of the same amount.
Even if you only count the downpayment, $2400 a year on $90k is a 2.6% return; you therefore are getting the majority of your return from appreciation.
To actually make a profit on the rental portion, you need to discount the appreciation. You can do this if you're paying into a mortgage from 20 years ago and renting at todays prices, but that's just ignoring the fact that you could sell the property.
The biggest risk that most small landlords don't account for is a bad tenant - they exist and they will quickly eat through your $200/net a month.
The final proof is no company anywhere is building single-family rentals. If there was money to be made there, they would; but you need to get to apartments and the cost-savings inherent in them before it makes sense.
You realize that a mortgage is a loan, right? You’re paying both interest and equity on it over time, which you need to take into account. The longer you pay it, the more of your payments are really going right back into your own pocket. Renters get zero equity in exchange for their rent.
And yes, I’ll agree that some portion of the ROI on a house is the expected appreciation, but we’ve setup a system where that’s effectively guaranteed in many locations and simultaneously unavailable to renters. There’s a reason “be a landlord” is now the go-to “get rich” strategy for a large number of people.
You seem to be assuming that a rental property is subject to a mortgage. I don't know how what fraction of the US rental property is covered by mortgages, but it is definitely not 100%. For those that are not, your math is totally wrong.
I've been a landlord of a non-mortgaged property and am about to become one again (reluctantly). We charge a below market rental rate, and typically make around 4-6% (pretax) of the nominal property value a year (we typically divert 1-2% of the rent into a maintainance fund).
> Even if you only count the downpayment, $2400 a year on $90k is a 2.6% return; you therefore are getting the majority of your return from appreciation.
I would also getting the increased equity in the house as each mortgage payment lowers the total loan amount.
Key word down payment. You put 200k down on the rental and get 200k in rent. You pay 1.6 million on a 800k loan and own the house at the end. Without appreciation, you are 600k in the hole
I don't understand where the 1.6 million came from. If you're talking about interest on the loan, the premise was that the rent covers the mortgage payment (interest and capital) plus maintenance plus returns some net cash. In that case, when the net cash has returned enough to cover the downpayment, you'd be richer by the entire value of the house even without appreciation.
So, for your 200k downpayment, you now have 200k * 1.047^35 = 1MM as the total house value that you own even without house appreciation, so almost a 5% rate of return.
> a result of the whole “Russia Russia Russia” thing.
Can you explain who the "boy" was and how they "cried wolf"? Did you read the Senate Intelligence report? PBS: Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election [1].
"The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."
That second quote you gave is just really slanted. The right framing here is Trump is not a smart man. Sure, his folks talked to Russian operatives. That's for two reasons:
1. They're stupid and easy to manipulate.
2. They urgently wanted negative stories to publish about Hillary.
Yes, Russia was trying to influence our election. But, no, Trump isn't some clever Manchurian Candidate taking over our country on behalf of another country.
The right framing here is that famous SNL sketch about Reagan from the 80s, where Reagan acts like a bumbler but then when the doors close suddenly becomes some kind of genius mob figure. That skit was funny, because the "mob boss" version of Reagan was obviously just not true. Same thing for Trump.
Turning to American media. Sure, they can dig up stuff about Trump's behavior with Russia. Along the same lines, there are tons of stories across decades painting the Clintons as pretty terrible people.
The difference here, and this is important, is that outlets like CNN do have a massive bias in favor of Democratic candidates. That's where the "Russia Russia Russia" narrative by Trump supporters is actually right. Mainstream media's treatment of events like the Russia story, Jan 6, BLM protests, etc. is absolutely biased. That's where the suspicion comes from.
The solution is for mainstream journalists to reduce their bias. Easy places to start:
* Tell the truth about the relative propensity of a white versus black suspect to be shot by police.
* Investigate political candidates in an evenhanded way, and be as honest as possible about errors on stories like Hunter Biden's laptop.
> But, no, Trump isn't some clever Manchurian Candidate taking over our country on behalf of another country.
A claim neither I nor the article made. The Trump Campaign, however, had many ties to Russia (Manafort, Rick Gates) and clearly served Russian interests (changing the party platform on Ukraine, ghost written op-eds). Some of them even went to prison for it and you are still trying to claim it never happened. Did we ever figure out why his campaign manager gave campaign polling data to a Russian oligarch?
> Sure, they can dig up stuff about Trump's behavior with Russia. Along the same lines, there are tons of stories across decades painting the Clintons as pretty terrible people.
Whatabout-ism in plain sight.
> The difference here, and this is important, is that outlets like CNN do have a massive bias in favor of Democratic candidates.
It was a PBS article, so this is not relevant comment. Even so, the article was referencing a release from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee. Why would they repeat Democratic talking points?
It wasn't whataboutism. I was pointing out that much of the media's objective is just to create controversy, not to clarify issues. They do it in both directions. Yes, the article didn't explicitly say he was a Manchurian Candidate, but that's the implication, and it's a bad read.
Someone can commit a crime without being a Russian agent. Same goes for Hunter Biden and his stupid laptop and weird deal with that company in Ukraine. I don't think he was a spy. I just think he's an idiot and greedy. He and Trump are the same.
The core issue here is thinking there's some real moral difference between left and right. There isn't. Think of the political spectrum in absolute value terms. People in the middle are the best people. People on both wings are the bad people.
Edit: Also, you know full well no one is going to read all 1,000 pages of this report. PBS is well known to have a large liberal bias. I downloaded the report and went through a bit of it. One thing I noticed is there's a big partisan split in the report itself about what the report means. Democrats say it essentially means Trump is a Russian spy. Republicans say it shows there was no collusion. Note which story PBS published.
> Yes, the article didn't explicitly say he was a Manchurian Candidate, but that's the implication, and it's a bad read.
The article is inconsequential, the report it is describing (and the evidence within that report) is the thing you keep dancing around. The report lays out in great detail all of the activities and connections.
> Someone can commit a crime without being a Russian agent.
Another thing nobody claimed. You have failed to engage in any of the substance. It's just deflection after deflection.
> The core issue here is thinking there's some real moral difference between left and right. There isn't. Think of the political spectrum in absolute value terms. People in the middle are the best people. People on both wings are the bad people.
Sounds like you've figured it all out. No need to continue.
The boy was the media and left wing politicians for about 1-2 years straight. The supposed wolf was something like a puppy was seen in one of Trumps cars once and it looked Russian, according to XYZ political enemies of Trump.
The Senate Intelligence Report was released by a Republican-led committee and clearly outlined the many connections between the campaign and Russia. That committee and it's findings had nothing to do with "the media", "left wing politicians", or "XYZ political enemies of Trump".
I guess you've decided not to count the letters in the report from Republican senators specifically saying there was no collusion as part of the report. Also, the word is "its" not "it's".
I didn't decide not to count anything nor have I used the term collusion. Are there particular excerpts in the letters that prove the campaign didn't work closely with Russians? Because the report provides plenty of evidence that they did.
Did we ever find out why Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik polling data from the campaign? Did we ever learn why he worked for "free" on the campaign?
just to come full circle, he went to prison, in part, for his fraudulent actions helping the Russian government (attempt to) destabilize Ukraine.
> Also, the word is "its" not "it's".
Thanks for that, hope it wasn't too confusing. FYI, the period should be inside the quotes for "it's."
The point is that GDP is a measure of how much the economy in the US grows or contracts, just as CPI is a measure of how much prices in the US grow or contract. You shouldn't view GDP as a personal indicator of economic growth, just like CPI isn't an analysis of costs on your personal spending. Treating it as such feels like distorting the purpose of the measure to suit a narrative.
It has limitations in its ability to measure that, it can simultaneously be the best measure that we have, in the absence of a better one, doesn't mean its good or a helpful indication, and as we both agree it’s not a good indication of any individual persons experience
> It has limitations in its ability to measure that
Nobody has denies this, so why is it a talking point?
> as we both agree it’s not a good indication of any individual persons experience
Which is why I use it for what it is instead of complaining about it not being something else. Any one individual is influenced by their own bias and experience, which creates an entirely different problem.
> If GDP goes up 5%, but you only get a 3% raise does that make GDP a bad measure of the economy?
let's stick with the basics. this was the whole conversation, a leading question that pretends to be a thought exercise that suggests in some other scenario that GDP is a good measure. no more, no less. I think we've gone over everything now.
I didn't see where you developed the bulletproof case that GDP was a bad measure. If you've proven that at some point, I'm happy to adjust my understanding. In lieu of that, I'll go with the economic experts who regularly study, use, and rely on GDP for real world analysis.
> you're the only one that had to read it twice, we talked about it now, good talk.
The lack of punctuation and choice of verb tense made it difficult to understand, no need for the condescending tone.
I'm wondering if these people are suggesting a completely different approach, or if they are just starting to realize that BLS publishes a huge number of inflation measures [1]:
> Price indexes are available for the U.S., the four Census regions, nine Census divisions, two size of city classes, eight cross-classifications of regions and size-classes, and for 23 local areas. Indexes are available for major groups of consumer expenditures (food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and communications, and other goods and services), for items within each group, and for special categories, such as services.
> Personally I have seen prices go up well above 10%.
For what goods/services? Have you been tracking the same goods/services over the past year to make this analysis?
> Inflation metrics are complicated and there is a huge incentive to keep the official numbers down as they affect trillions in spending in terms of social security and other numbers tied to official inflation.
You haven't provided anything aside from personal anecdote (without any actual data to support it). Your understanding is built entirely on your own experience, the official numbers are built on a transparent basket of goods that is meant to represent the entire country.
For me, housing costs (most people's largest expense) hasn't changed in 3 years because I have a 30-year mortgage. Does that mean that the 5% CPU measure of housing expenses is false? Of course not.
> Everyone I've talked to said it was a horrible act and those officers deserve legal charges.
That's great for the people you talked to, the comment was about the NRA or any other gun rights group actually defending him. Did you friends protest for him? Did they write their congressperson? Did they raise legal funds at the gun range? If they didn't, then they aren't activists.
What about Philando Castile? The NRA didn't have anything to say about that incident until a year later.
Did you do any of those things, or are you just pointing fingers at people for not doing the same things you did't do?
Make no mistake, the government's job, first and foremost is to protect itself. This means state, local and federal. The only reason we're even seeing any resolution on this sort of thing is they see it as a systemic problem. "Defund the police," and some local government's willingness to put it to a vote put a lot of fear into police departments. Over time, they will revert back to their normal behavior, so it's something we have to be diligent about.
Yes, I wrote my mayor, city councilman, senators, the president and congressman. Nothing really happened until defund the police became nationalized and the state / local / federal governments were forced to act out of pure self interest and self preservation. Bad, murderous cops got away Scott free for decades before that.
One of the saddest parts is good people become police to actually do good for the community, then they are met with this sort of nastiness from their departments and bosses. It's gotta be a real gut punch.
Here's a recent example of a cop trying to pull a sergeant off of a perp. Sergeant was threatening to pepper spray a guy handcuffed in the back of a squad car. Other cop pulls on sergeant's belt to stop what he was doing. Sergeant freaks out and puts his hand around other cop's (female by the way) throat.
> Did you do any of those things, or are you just pointing fingers at people for not doing the same things you did't do?
I protested, donated, wrote letters to voters, and contacted a local politician.
But that isn't relevant to the original comment, which was a person claiming that "everyone I talked to said it was horrible" is equivalent to gun rights activism.
So let me break down how I read it. This is what the person was replying to, he quoted it so will I:
> Again: you can't get white activist gun owners to defend a licensed gun owner who was surprised and shot in his own home by police executing a no-knock warrant that wasn't for him.
Which is first, an absolute, and absolutes are rarely true. Second, you said defend. "...you can't get white activist gun owners to defend a licensed gun owner..." Defining a police shooting as a bad shooting (illegal) is defending the victim of the shooting. To defend the police and not the victim would be to justify it the shooting as a good shooting (valid/legal). Based on what he said, he points to everyone he knows defended the victim claiming it was a bad shooting, therefore, everyone he knew defended the victim and not the police.
It sounds like you might want to slow down a bit and give people the benefit of the doubt, maybe take the time to read and understand what people write. I have the same affliction myself sometimes.
> It sounds like you might want to slow down a bit and give people the benefit of the doubt, maybe take the time to read and understand what people write. I have the same affliction myself sometimes.
Thanks for the advice, but I re-read everything and verified that I understood. It's possible that we just disagree, or maybe your quoted comment removes all context from the discussion.
> Did you do any of those things, or are you just pointing fingers at people for not doing the same things you did't do?
Was this an example of you giving me the benefit of the doubt?
>Was this an example of you giving me the benefit of the doubt?
Hah, good point, it was not. I told you I have that affliction sometimes as well. That's the problem when a discussion becomes emotional, it usually ceases to be a discussion.
> With a lot of art just stored tax efficiently, not sure how relevant "enjoyment" currently really is at the upper end of the market (maybe enjoyment of possession?).
On the flip side, are millions of people who pay money to simply view art every day in cities around the world. That seems like pretty strong evidence that people get "enjoyment" from it.
> Arguably, being part of the crypto community does seem to bring some people joy.
I'd guess it's the part about the rapidly rising prices that gives them joy.
The contention was that price formation in art could in principle be driven by enjoyment not that people in general don't enjoy art. What if art also always has a social signaling component to its price?
Whether is it rising prices or community that gives people joy in crypto I have no data on - are there any infomative studies around?
> Whether is it rising prices or community that gives people joy in crypto I have no data on - are there any infomative studies around?
I'm not sure about there being "joy" in crypto currencies. This article [1] argues the exact opposite, but isn't a study of any kind. I'd be interested to see the average rates of depression among crypto owners. Gangs give people a sense of community (maybe we call that "joy"), but they aren't good for people's health long-term.
> Why shouldn't the government provide these services for the taxes people pay?
It is very common for government's to tax exchanges of money/property/goods. We see this in the sales tax, estate tax, transfer tax, cash app transfers, monetary gifts above $15k, income taxes, etc.
> One of my favorite things to highlight was that following the Fed receiving taxpayer funds to prop up the stock market Disney had their greatest single day stock gains in history all while every single theme park, hotel and cruise ship were indefinitely shutdown and every single movie production was indefinitely suspended.
Probably because of their massively successful streaming service that was perfectly placed to pick up the slack. They also have one of the deepest content libraries around so production stoppage hurts them less than competitors like Amazon, Netflix, AppleTV.
To drive it home, Disney had record revenue in 4Q2021, driven by streaming and parks revenue [1]. Maybe it’s you who had it wrong?
> To drive it home, Disney had record revenue in 4Q2021, driven by streaming and parks revenue [1]. Maybe it’s you who had it wrong?
You are cherry picking an article from Q42021 that references park revenue, whereas I gave a very specific example of their record single day gains in company history which occurred while the parks were closed in 2020.
As to Disney+ streaming service it launched in 2020 but the Disney+ lost $2.8B in fiscal 2020, the same period of time it’s parks were closed and park losses total about $7B, and yet during this period it saw it’s record single day stock price gains in history. That record day was a direct result of the Fed and taxpayer money, not record theme park revenue (it was record losses) nor Disney+ which was a brand new division and recording its own multibillion dollar losses.
The article is proof that investors were correct. Stock prices are a present value of future earnings. In 2020, after the stock price had already tanked due to COVID and the bailout was announced, investors thought future earnings would increase. They bid up the stock price to acknowledge that belief.
At the time Disney+ was losing money, but the pandemic and the bailout were indicators that the steaming business would take off (it did). Their huge content backlog had them perfectly placed to manage a production shutdown. There’s also the 21st Century Fox acquisition that was Closed in 2019 and gave them more content.
If investors expected future earnings to grow more than current losses (which were already priced in by the market), then it isn’t wild for the stock to bounce. A year later, their earnings pretty much prove it.
We could also go into the calculations of why the value of recurring revenue (streaming subscribers) is much higher than the value of non-recurring revenue (park visits).
> If investors expected future earnings to grow more than current losses
Well of course Disney future theme park earnings were going to increase from zero. You aren’t considering the actual E/P ratio.
Pre-Covid Disney both stock price was a at all time high and their E/P ratio was at an all time high (about 22, where usually an 18 is considered over priced).
Those “investors” you suggest were the Fed using taxpayer money buy and prop up the stock price. With the Fed money Disney stock price once again reached a new all time high price and a P/E ratio over 90, meaning the Fed was bailing out shareholders at a historic high of $90+ to $1 earned, where an average publicly traded company should be closer to 13-14.
> Well of course Disney future theme park earnings were going to increase from zero. You aren’t considering the actual E/P ratio.
This isn't how investors think. If you know that future earnings are going to increase from zero due to outside circumstances (COVID, in this case), why would you base your analysis on past earnings? The past earnings don't matter, especially when you admit that they were heavily influenced by COVID.
$1 of recurring revenue from subscriptions (Disney+) is worth more than $1 spent at a Disney theme park. The recurring revenue costs less to service and is more predictable going forward. This is why businesses (like Adobe, Apple, Disney, etc.) have been working to shift revenue towards subscriptions over one-time purchases.
> Those “investors” you suggest were the Fed using taxpayer money buy and prop up the stock price. With the Fed money Disney stock price once again reached a new all time high price and a P/E ratio over 90, meaning the Fed was bailing out shareholders at a historic high of $90+ to $1 earned, where an average publicly traded company should be closer to 13-14.
It feels like you are working backwards to try and find the nefarious actions you are so positive about. The Fed deciding to bailout companies and consumers obviously helped businesses (especially consumer facing businesses, like Disney). The entire stock market exploded when it was announced.
The P/E ratio of the entire S&P 500 spiked from around 20-25x to 40-45x due to Fed and Congressional actions [1]. Average publicly traded companies do not trade at 13-14x P/E, and low interest rates for decades have made that a fact. That said, Disney isn't a traditional company because their investments and growth in streaming make them look more like a growth stock. Which is, again, reinforced by their record revenue numbers.
> The P/E ratio of the entire S&P 500 spiked from around 20-25x to 40-45x due to Fed and Congressional actions
Again Disney was double that at 90 after the FED began buying Disney stock/bonds using taxpayer funds and pumped it to an ATH.
> It feels like you are working backwards to try and find the nefarious actions you are so positive about.
It’s all public record, the stock was tanking, after the FED began to directly prop up Disney the stock price reached a new ATH in 2021 at which point executives/insiders, including the Chairman, began to sell sending the price downward from ATH and leaving the FED holding the bag. Despite your claims of Disney behind a growth stock the Chairman liquidated something like 50% of his holdings.
Anyway I’m not here to debate the merits of the Disney stock price. The FED shouldn’t be getting taxpayer funds much less buying Disney stock/bonds, it’s corporate welfare, and when the stock price is propped up to an ATH with taxpayer funds and the Chairman and other executives sell out it’s a golden parachute. Like I said people look back on 2008 and think taxpayers should thank the banks, and similarly people (presumably like you) will think taxpayers should thank companies like Disney that were bailed out by taxpayers.
Anecdotally, I know people who buy single family homes and rent them for profit. My 3 bed, 2 bath single-family home has a $3,000/monthly mortgage, I could easily rent it for more than $3,500 (closer to $4,000). Take out 10% for maintenance fees, and I net $200 a month.