All Forum Posts by: Brad D.

It is interesting. Both Seattle and Boston are two of the most expensive cites in the US. Also among the most educated:
https://www.citylab.com/life/2...

I can't imagine this will hold, but we'll see. 

I would think this is wrong, but who knows. The WSJ is usually fairly solid, but they did turn the comments off on this article:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-stay-at-home-order-seattles-real-estate-market-continues-to-show-up-11586800867

Not sure how much I can copy/paste here, but here is a bit of the article if it is blocked for you:

"Multiple offers. Bidding wars. All-cash deals hours after listings go live: This is all still happening in Seattle, the city that four weeks ago was considered an epicenter of the coronavirus epidemic, and since March 23 has been under a stay-at-home order barring all nonessential activity.

“We were hoping we could get a fair price for a home now,” says Marcelo Garcia, 33, a senior program manager at e-commerce giant Amazon. He and his wife, Melissa Richmond, a 33-year-old who heads strategy operations a non-profit organization, have submitted written offers on four houses over the past three weeks in Bellevue, a suburb just east of the city. All their offers, around $1 million apiece, have been outbid or rejected, despite being close to the asking prices. Now, at night they go driving past homes for sale that they have only seen online. “It’s a weird time,” says Ms. Richmond.

Washington was the first state to report a novel coronavirus death. While the number of Covid-19 cases in the state continues to grow, the rate is slower than other states thanks in part to early restrictions. But what also distinguishes Seattle from many other major cities is its fast-growing tech sector. While many industries are struggling, some of the city’s tech companies are getting a boost as millions of Americans comply with social distancing orders throughout the country.

Amazon has announced it plans to hire 100,000 new workers in the U.S. to deal with the crisis, while cloud-computing providers like Google and Microsoft, another Seattle-area giant, have experienced increased demand from workplace-collaboration software providers, streaming video service companies and online videogame makers.

 Do you work in finance now?

That sounds about right, especially with the expected lower landscaping fees, prop taxes, and newer housing stock presumably needing less repair

While the merits of an MBA are increasingly dubious (unless it's Harvard, Wharton, etc), your MBA can still help you on the career track. However, credentials are not IQ.   

In one world credentials and experience are everything. I own a Recruiting Agency, direct hire, perm placement. Let's say I need a BSCE and MSCE, 10-15 years exp, 5 years management, plastics, no gaps, no tenure less than 3 years, with ties to the SE: If I find someone who has all of this, they're in the door; if they interview well, they may get a job even if they are fairly mediocre. If the most amazing genius in the world comes along and has a BSME and MSME, he is not getting an interview. That seems unfair, but that's how it is.

The situation I'm describing in the previous post is the exact opposite of this. 

@Joshua Myers apparently reading comprehension is not your thing, but I'll try one more time for anyone else who might enjoy exploring new ideas as much as dopamine rage hits:

I think active trading is for fools and professionals. Professionals who make this their life's work will always have a HUGE advantage over people who dabble in this. They have better technology, education, and of course 'Information.'  You buy the rumor and sell the news. Most think they have access to 'rumors' but unless you have unique 'information' you don't have the rumor, you have the news.

Almost no one can beat the S&P 500, as Warren Buffet and others have said. So, if you are not going to make this your life's work and focus, you are better off not actively trading, and being in index funds long term. Additionally, for most people who do attempt to actively trade, there is a huge opportunity cost here, where there intelligence and effort could be spent better focusing on something like real estate, in their home or selected markets, where they have the chance to truly be an expert, and have that advantage over even the Harvard MBA's at Blackstone in terms of boots on the ground. You can have a chance against a 160 iq wall street pro in your selected real estate market; you almost certainly have no chance against him in the market. Wall street is wealth transfer from the masses to pros. Real Estate is now moving toward that as well, but less so.  

The raw IQ requirements to make it actively trading are far beyond me. If you are in that elite crowd and are truly plugged in, respect to you. 

So long term in the index funds for most is fairly orthodox, as most agree. Where I deviate personally, and I understand this is not orthodox, is getting out at times like this current situation. I got out Feb 26 and will sit on the sidelines until the situation seems to have bottomed out, maybe August or later, we'll see. Had I sat all of 2008 out, I would have been much better off. 

So if your argument is only that I am wrong getting out for 6 months or a year once every 10-ish years rather just staying in, that is a fair argument and the orthodox opinion. I disagree, but may be wrong. It's a case where I am faced with "What are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" I choose to believe my lying eyes here. 

People hear what they want to hear, and a lot of people are hearing that they don't have to pay and no one can make them. This 79 year old woman is not trying to hear that. 

Basically, the government is being the good guy and and letting the bad landlord pay for it. 

@Joshua Myers I meant pull out at the sign of a world shaking event on the horizon, not pull out now. I pulled out February 26 down a bit, but missed a lot of the pain, and will stay out until I see a bottom. I've never actively traded, don't study the market. I think active trading is for fools and serious professionals. I'm in index funds when things seem ok and in cash at times like this. I was late getting out in 2008 and learned my lesson. World about to go crazy? get out unless you're an expert short seller. Things see ok in the world's best economy, go long in the index funds (DJIA, nasdaq, S&P 500, etc)

But to the question of people pulling out now. I wasn't addressing that situation. That said, if I were in that situation now, I would still get out, as I think the market has farther to fall. I think what we've seen recently is a dead cat bounce. 

@Bill B. a little salty? If you think the drop will be 10 or 20 percent, you're about to be a lot more salty, maybe have to get a job salty. 

I have a business that, with a slight pivot, should sail through this situation and lots of dry powder. I've been buying and selling houses for years in all kinds of markets, made lots of mistakes. So to see this coming, when I finally know what's up and am loaded for bear, yeah I'm excited af. 

I posted this earlier today on another thread. Probably appropriate for this thread as well:

I have a couple of Grant Cardone books on audible. I like his approach on mindset, sales, etc. I've also watched a couple of Meet Kevin videos 'exposing' cardone's lack of actual real estate background and I wasn't too surprised. He is definitely more carnival barker midwit selling to bozos than harvard mba hedge funder selling to blue bloods.

That said: I know there are discussions about Cardone having stopped paying dividend payments. Again, not too surprising. But I was curious about how his process works, so I watched a few of his videos on the Cardone Capital FAQ page. To see the most interesting video, which I can't link directly to, start here:
https://cardonecapital.com/faq...
then scroll down underneath to "How Long is the Term of the Fund?

So first, the term of the fund is 10 years! Are you kidding me? This term is for everyone, un-accredited and accredited. But I can't imagine anyone with 200k single/300k joint income or 1 million net worth would wrap up money for 10 years with Grant. But anyway, moving on, it gets better. Start watching again at the 1 minute mark. He actually says it may not be 10 years; at his discretion it might 12, or 14 or 16 years. The way he words it, he doesn't put a cap on the time limit, which may not rule out "forever."

Also, even more interestingly, there are two edits: at just after 1:01 there is an edit, where Grant seems to have added this statement about the ten year term. Then another edit at about 1:06 where Cardone goes into the fact it may be 12, 14, 16 or whatever.

An obvious edit isn't so surprising in general, except for the fact that the content added in the edit is so surprising and Grant is pretty much as smooth as they come, basically he's 'one take Grant' who doesn't need a lot of edits.

So the questions are:
1. Did investors know Grant might keep there money for up to 16 years (or more*)?
2. Most importantly, how long can Cardone keep your money? Is it 16 years, the final number he mentioned, or is it forever? Note at no point did he ever say it 'would be no more than 16,' that is just the last number he tossed out.

Obviously this is point is moot if Cardone goes bust in the upcoming multifamily crash. But it probably is important to see if unsaavy, un-accredited investors were roped into something they didn't understand.