Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
General Real Estate Investing
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 4 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

198
Posts
180
Votes
David S.
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Larkspur, CO
180
Votes |
198
Posts

When is enough enough? How many homes does one need!?

David S.
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Larkspur, CO
Posted

Perhaps I have an inner socialist I’m not aware of, but I have to ask the community, when is enough enough as it pertains to number of units owned?

How often they ask on the podcasts “where are you going from here?” And the answer is something like “oh, we plan to have 500 doors” or 1500, or whatever. To me that qualifies as greed if I’m speaking honestly. Why on earth would you want so many units!? I can see it if they’re lower income apartments and/or you’re syndicating, bit that’s not what I’m talkig about here.

Another case in point; Invitation homes. 82,000 units they own and rent! Ridiculous. 

The world would be a better place (I’d argue) if so many weren’t trying to commoditize or hoard everything. Honestly, that’s 20,500 families who could otherwise gain substantial financial stability through owning four rental properties each. I hate the concept of “fairness” and all that is embodied by socialism, but at some point this sort of behavior shoud fall under antitrust laws and be illegal. At some point I’d think that there’s a reasonable (high) standard of living and anything beyond that is just sheer excess. It’s as if we as a society don’t want a solid middle class. Why not step aside at some point and let the next guy have a little easier time of it? Seems the right mentality. 

Is it just me???

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

2,285
Posts
1,995
Votes
Anthony Dooley
  • Investor
  • Columbus, GA
1,995
Votes |
2,285
Posts
Anthony Dooley
  • Investor
  • Columbus, GA
Replied

@David S. if you feel that being very wealthy automatically makes someone greedy or evil, then it is highly unlikely that you will ever achieve wealth. So, you don't have to worry about how much is enough because you will stop sooner than later. For me, being very wealthy means security from evil and greed. I do not have to be a victim of someone else because wealth give me choices. If at some point I gain so much wealth that I cannot possibly spend it, then there isn't much else to do except give lots of money away. The super rich don't just give money to charity, they start charitable foundations. You will have a hard time finding wealthy people who don't give. You can't give what you don't have, so being poor is not more noble. Socialism only benefits the government, not the people.

Loading replies...