Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Warren Buffett: "It is a different game that requires a different type of person to enjoy it." At 94 years old, Warren Buffett has a clear preference when it comes to investing, and it's not real estate. When asked about real estate versus stocks, Buffett argues the stock market... wins on almost every practical dimension. "There is simply much more opportunity in the United States security market than in real estate." His reasoning comes down to three things: speed, simplicity, and certainty of completion. In stocks, you can execute billions of dollars worth of business anonymously in five minutes, and once the trade is done, it's done. The completion rate is essentially 100% once buyer and seller agree on price. Real estate is the opposite. You're dealing with a single owner or family that may have held a property for a long time, possibly borrowed too much against it, or is facing negative trends. Every transaction becomes an enormous, drawn-out decision. "In real estate, signing the deal is just the start of another phase where people negotiate more and more things." Buffett contrasts this with the stock market: "If someone needs to sell 20,000 shares of Berkshire and the price is right, it is done in five seconds and closes every time." His late partner Charlie Munger took a different view. Munger enjoyed real estate deals and continued doing them even in the last five years of his life. But Buffett says that if Munger had to choose exclusively between the two at age 21, even he would have chosen stocks. For Buffett, the conclusion is simple: "We find it much better when people are ready to pick up the phone and you can do hundreds of millions of dollars of business in a day. I have been spoiled by this efficiency, and I like being spoiled, so we will keep it that way." Real estate can produce great returns, but the friction involved in negotiations, multiple parties, and drawn-out timelines makes it a fundamentally different game. For most investors, the stock market offers far more opportunity with far less complexity.show more

Big Brain Investing

2,224 subscribers

42,809 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Warren Buffett thoughtfully explains why investing in stocks/equities is better than real estate, during Berkshire's latest annual meeting: "In respect to real estate, it's so much harder than stocks in terms of negotiation of deals, time spent, the involvement of multiple parties in the ownership. Usually when real estate gets in trouble, you find out you're dealing with more than equity holder. But there have been times when large amounts of real estate... I've changed hands at bargain prices, but usually stocks were cheaper, but there were a lot easier to do. Charlie did more real estate. Charlie enjoyed real estate transactions, and he actually did a fair number of them in the last five years of his life. But he was playing a game that was an interesting game to him. But I think if you'd asked him to make a choice when he was 21, he'd either be in stocks exclusively the rest of his life or real estate the rest of his life. He would have chosen stocks in a second. There's just so much more opportunity, at least in the United States. There's so much more opportunity that presents itself in the security market than it does in real estate and in real estate. You're usually dealing with a single owner or a family that owns maybe a large property they've had a long time. Maybe they've borrowed too much money against them. Maybe the population trends are against them. But to them, it's an enormous... When you walk down to the New York Stock Exchange, you can do billions of dollars worth of business totally anonymous, and you can do it in five minutes. And the trades are complete when they're complete. In real estate, when you make a deal, a big deal with a distressed lender, when you sign the deal, then you go into another phase. Then people start negotiating more things and more things. It's a whole different game. And a different type of person, to some extent, enjoys the game. We did a few real estate deals that came our way in 2008 and 2009, but the amount of time that they would take us compared to doing something intelligent and probably better in securities, there was just no comparison. I mean, in a real estate deal, every sentence is important. In stocks, if somebody needs to sell 20,000 shares of Berkshire or something and they call us and the price is right, it's done in five seconds. And it closes all the time."

Warren Buffett thoughtfully explains why investing in stocks/equities is better than real estate, during Berkshire's latest annual meeting: "In respect to real estate, it's so much harder than stocks in terms of negotiation of deals, time spent, the involvement of multiple parties in the ownership. Usually when real estate gets in trouble, you find out you're dealing with more than equity holder. But there have been times when large amounts of real estate... I've changed hands at bargain prices, but usually stocks were cheaper, but there were a lot easier to do. Charlie did more real estate. Charlie enjoyed real estate transactions, and he actually did a fair number of them in the last five years of his life. But he was playing a game that was an interesting game to him. But I think if you'd asked him to make a choice when he was 21, he'd either be in stocks exclusively the rest of his life or real estate the rest of his life. He would have chosen stocks in a second. There's just so much more opportunity, at least in the United States. There's so much more opportunity that presents itself in the security market than it does in real estate and in real estate. You're usually dealing with a single owner or a family that owns maybe a large property they've had a long time. Maybe they've borrowed too much money against them. Maybe the population trends are against them. But to them, it's an enormous... When you walk down to the New York Stock Exchange, you can do billions of dollars worth of business totally anonymous, and you can do it in five minutes. And the trades are complete when they're complete. In real estate, when you make a deal, a big deal with a distressed lender, when you sign the deal, then you go into another phase. Then people start negotiating more things and more things. It's a whole different game. And a different type of person, to some extent, enjoys the game. We did a few real estate deals that came our way in 2008 and 2009, but the amount of time that they would take us compared to doing something intelligent and probably better in securities, there was just no comparison. I mean, in a real estate deal, every sentence is important. In stocks, if somebody needs to sell 20,000 shares of Berkshire or something and they call us and the price is right, it's done in five seconds. And it closes all the time."

Triple Net Investor

1,042,548 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger purchased Wells Fargo stock in the early 1990s because of the quality of management. MUNGER: We were basically betting that their real estate lending was way better than average. And, indeed, it was. BUFFETT: If we hadn't gone a little further than just looking at numbers, we would not have been able to make that decision.

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger purchased Wells Fargo stock in the early 1990s because of the quality of management. MUNGER: We were basically betting that their real estate lending was way better than average. And, indeed, it was. BUFFETT: If we hadn't gone a little further than just looking at numbers, we would not have been able to make that decision.

Kevin Carpenter

24,807 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger didn't avoid real estate because they thought it was a bad asset class They stayed away because they believed they had no durable advantage in it. When asked why real estate had never become a significant part of Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio, Buffett pointed to two reasons: an unfavorable tax structure and the absence of a competitive edge. He explained that Berkshire, as a C corporation, faces an extra layer of corporate taxation on real estate income, putting it at a disadvantage against REITs, partnerships, and S corporations. As Buffett put it: "Real estate tends to be a very lousy investment for people who are taxed under subchapter C." Beyond taxes, Buffett argued that developed real estate is usually priced efficiently. Unlike public stocks, where Berkshire believes it can identify mispriced businesses, most commercial real estate transactions involve buyers and sellers who have access to similar information. According to Buffett, the best opportunities arise only when markets become highly inefficient — such as during the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) era in the early 1990s, when distressed assets, forced sellers, and scarce financing created widespread mispricing. Looking back, Buffett admitted Berkshire wasn't fully prepared to capitalize on those conditions and believed they missed an opportunity to earn substantial returns. He also recalled that one of the few major real estate deals Berkshire seriously pursued was the Irvine Company in the late 1970s, though the acquisition ultimately went to a group organized by Mobil Oil. Reflecting on his partnership with Charlie Munger, Buffett joked that Munger would often spend several minutes arguing against a deal—and the more passionate the objections, the more Buffett suspected Charlie actually liked it. Source: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting (2003) Q&A

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger didn't avoid real estate because they thought it was a bad asset class They stayed away because they believed they had no durable advantage in it. When asked why real estate had never become a significant part of Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio, Buffett pointed to two reasons: an unfavorable tax structure and the absence of a competitive edge. He explained that Berkshire, as a C corporation, faces an extra layer of corporate taxation on real estate income, putting it at a disadvantage against REITs, partnerships, and S corporations. As Buffett put it: "Real estate tends to be a very lousy investment for people who are taxed under subchapter C." Beyond taxes, Buffett argued that developed real estate is usually priced efficiently. Unlike public stocks, where Berkshire believes it can identify mispriced businesses, most commercial real estate transactions involve buyers and sellers who have access to similar information. According to Buffett, the best opportunities arise only when markets become highly inefficient — such as during the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) era in the early 1990s, when distressed assets, forced sellers, and scarce financing created widespread mispricing. Looking back, Buffett admitted Berkshire wasn't fully prepared to capitalize on those conditions and believed they missed an opportunity to earn substantial returns. He also recalled that one of the few major real estate deals Berkshire seriously pursued was the Irvine Company in the late 1970s, though the acquisition ultimately went to a group organized by Mobil Oil. Reflecting on his partnership with Charlie Munger, Buffett joked that Munger would often spend several minutes arguing against a deal—and the more passionate the objections, the more Buffett suspected Charlie actually liked it. Source: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting (2003) Q&A

Black Edge

20,087 Aufrufe • vor 28 Tagen

Why does Warren Buffett avoid real estate even when it’s cheap? Because one asset class lets him move billions in minutes, the other can trap him in years of negotiations. Buffett’s take is brutally simple: Stocks = speed, scale, finality. Real estate = delays, complexity, endless humans + paperwork. He’s done both. He’s seen bargains in both. But only one lets him act instantly when opportunity appears without meetings, emotions, or multi-party chaos. That’s why he says the securities market will always offer more opportunities and far easier ones to capture. Efficiency is an edge. And Buffett knows exactly where to find it. Video credit: CNBC

Why does Warren Buffett avoid real estate even when it’s cheap? Because one asset class lets him move billions in minutes, the other can trap him in years of negotiations. Buffett’s take is brutally simple: Stocks = speed, scale, finality. Real estate = delays, complexity, endless humans + paperwork. He’s done both. He’s seen bargains in both. But only one lets him act instantly when opportunity appears without meetings, emotions, or multi-party chaos. That’s why he says the securities market will always offer more opportunities and far easier ones to capture. Efficiency is an edge. And Buffett knows exactly where to find it. Video credit: CNBC

Gary Stone

390,393 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Caller: “I own a business and have managed to save $6.5 to $7 million in liquid cash, but I’m nervous about the market. Should I invest in the stock market, or should I go towards real estate?” Dave Ramsey: “You’ve got to get that invested because you’re making 1% on it.. that’s mathematically lazy. That money is not lifting as much as it should be lifting.” Dave Ramsey: “You are obviously very, very good at running your business. Why don’t you buy some more drugstores?” “You may not want the hassle or the stress of running more stores, but as a business person, you understand that small businesses generally give a much better rate of return than real estate or the stock market.” “If you can handle the stress, opening more locations or investing in commercial real estate like a well-placed small office building or strip center is a much better use of that capital than leaving it in cash.”

Caller: “I own a business and have managed to save $6.5 to $7 million in liquid cash, but I’m nervous about the market. Should I invest in the stock market, or should I go towards real estate?” Dave Ramsey: “You’ve got to get that invested because you’re making 1% on it.. that’s mathematically lazy. That money is not lifting as much as it should be lifting.” Dave Ramsey: “You are obviously very, very good at running your business. Why don’t you buy some more drugstores?” “You may not want the hassle or the stress of running more stores, but as a business person, you understand that small businesses generally give a much better rate of return than real estate or the stock market.” “If you can handle the stress, opening more locations or investing in commercial real estate like a well-placed small office building or strip center is a much better use of that capital than leaving it in cash.”

HENRY

191,161 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Warren Buffett on how he looks at stocks: “When we buy a stock, we would be happy with that stock if they told us the market was going to close for a couple of years… Quotes would have nothing to do with it… That’s exactly the way we look at stocks. We look at them as businesses.” The lesson is simple yet most investors never internalize it. A stock price is not the business. The quote is noise. The business is signal. If your judgment about the business is correct, the price takes care of itself — eventually, on its own timeline. ___ 🎙️ CNBC Warren Buffett Archive (2008)

Warren Buffett on how he looks at stocks: “When we buy a stock, we would be happy with that stock if they told us the market was going to close for a couple of years… Quotes would have nothing to do with it… That’s exactly the way we look at stocks. We look at them as businesses.” The lesson is simple yet most investors never internalize it. A stock price is not the business. The quote is noise. The business is signal. If your judgment about the business is correct, the price takes care of itself — eventually, on its own timeline. ___ 🎙️ CNBC Warren Buffett Archive (2008)

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®

13,096 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Indian real estate is in a real bubble, but it is not bursting any time soon. A lot of big people are involved in it, and they will never want that real estate to be in the hands of common people. It is a hub of corruption. It is a hub of black money, and it will never go away. You will have to pay 1 crore for a 2 BHK house, and you will keep paying emails for your life.

Indian real estate is in a real bubble, but it is not bursting any time soon. A lot of big people are involved in it, and they will never want that real estate to be in the hands of common people. It is a hub of corruption. It is a hub of black money, and it will never go away. You will have to pay 1 crore for a 2 BHK house, and you will keep paying emails for your life.

Ayussh Sanghi

75,622 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

Barry Sternlicht gives an insightful view about the challenges of real estate right now - and how to still make a lot of money in the current environment Here's what he said: "I think people, as they always do, tend to look in the rear view mirror and they look at a suboptimal performance of the real estate asset class across the last 3-4 years. Nvidia goes up a trillion dollars in four months. Like the hot kids on the block are everything AI, everything chatbot, etc... There are meme stocks that go from zero to $7 a share on a tweet. Crypto - there's worthless coins with $20+ billion dollar market caps. There's a coin called Useless. It's [literally] useless. It debuted in March 2025 and it went to a $700 million value. And the coin says "we are completely useless" In real estate people get rich but it's boring. You get rich holding on to it over long periods of time. It's not a day trading asset. The country right now is very impatient. So people want to play the hot thing. Real estate looks sort of sad in your portfolio right now. The only thing it beats is treasuries. And even then, it's not even beaten that. But you'll do well picking properties in the right cities... Everything is micro in real estate. For example, I built a building in South Beach. The first lease was $54. It's on the beach, and nobody built a new office building in 20+ years. We leased it up in the pandemic. It's 100% leased. A tenant actually needs to grow, and they called us last week. They're paying $125 and we'll re-lease it at $175. I mean, you can still make a lot of money if you get the micro market right."

Barry Sternlicht gives an insightful view about the challenges of real estate right now - and how to still make a lot of money in the current environment Here's what he said: "I think people, as they always do, tend to look in the rear view mirror and they look at a suboptimal performance of the real estate asset class across the last 3-4 years. Nvidia goes up a trillion dollars in four months. Like the hot kids on the block are everything AI, everything chatbot, etc... There are meme stocks that go from zero to $7 a share on a tweet. Crypto - there's worthless coins with $20+ billion dollar market caps. There's a coin called Useless. It's [literally] useless. It debuted in March 2025 and it went to a $700 million value. And the coin says "we are completely useless" In real estate people get rich but it's boring. You get rich holding on to it over long periods of time. It's not a day trading asset. The country right now is very impatient. So people want to play the hot thing. Real estate looks sort of sad in your portfolio right now. The only thing it beats is treasuries. And even then, it's not even beaten that. But you'll do well picking properties in the right cities... Everything is micro in real estate. For example, I built a building in South Beach. The first lease was $54. It's on the beach, and nobody built a new office building in 20+ years. We leased it up in the pandemic. It's 100% leased. A tenant actually needs to grow, and they called us last week. They're paying $125 and we'll re-lease it at $175. I mean, you can still make a lot of money if you get the micro market right."

Triple Net Investor

128,803 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Caleb Hammer says the S&P 500 is a better investment than real estate “With the incredible stock market that we’ve had over the past 50 years or so, it beats it every time.” “If you rent and just put your money into the stock market instead of that down payment on a house with a little extra for a mortgage, you’ll win every time.”

Caleb Hammer says the S&P 500 is a better investment than real estate “With the incredible stock market that we’ve had over the past 50 years or so, it beats it every time.” “If you rent and just put your money into the stock market instead of that down payment on a house with a little extra for a mortgage, you’ll win every time.”

WOLF Trading

11,654 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Warren Buffett just warned that the US dollar could collapse and admitted he doesn't understand most of the stock market anymore. 95 years old, sitting on $380 billion in cash, and the first time watching from the sidelines instead of actively investing. And what he revealed at this weekend's Berkshire shareholder meeting is genuinely concerning: On the market, Buffett didn't hold back. He compared it to "a church with a casino attached" and said the casino has never been more packed. On one-day options: "That is not investing. It's not speculating. It's gambling. Totally." He pointed to the Avis short squeeze THIS WEEK. A rental car company that's been around for 50 years getting meme-squeezed in 2026. The same behavior that blew up retail traders with GameStop is back, except now it's hitting boring legacy companies with zero business being volatile. "We have lots more regulation now, but people spend their time figuring out how to get around the rules rather than follow the rules." That one sentence explains more about the current market than every CNBC segment combined. When asked why he's hoarding $380 billion instead of investing it, Buffett said something no one expected: "I understand fewer of the businesses as a percentage of the whole than I did 10 years ago. I have not learned new industries for some years. I'm not going to have an edge on a whole bunch of younger people that have actually grown up with it." Think about what he's actually saying... This is a man who made $140 billion by understanding businesses better than anyone alive. And he's telling you the current market is so detached from reality that even HE can't make sense of what's being valued and why. He quoted IBM's Tom Watson Sr.: "I'm smart in spots and I stay around those spots." In 60 years of managing money, he said MAYBE five were "really juicy." Five out of sixty. That means 92% of his career was spent WAITING while everyone else gambled. And he still ended up richer than all of them. Then the conversation turned to inflation and that's where it gets really interesting: Buffett said America is "not immune" from runaway inflation. He brought up countries that went bankrupt "six or seven times" in his lifetime. Compared today to right before Volcker had to rescue the dollar, when Americans were borrowing at 12% to buy farmland earning 6% because they believed the dollar would disappear. "Cash is trash" was the mentality. Nebraska farmers collapsed because of it. Entire communities wiped out not by a recession but by a BELIEF that the currency was dying. And Buffett sees that same energy building again. Then someone asked the question everyone wanted answered: Do you see a crash coming? "If you saw it coming, it wouldn't happen. The things people are talking about and thinking about? It's not going to happen. But there are things that can come out of the blue." He compared it to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 that triggered World War I. Nobody was discussing or anticipating it. But it changed the world overnight. "That's particularly true now because of the things that can come out of the sky." A 95yo man who has survived every crash, every war, every crisis of the last six decades just told you the market is a casino, the dollar isn't safe, and the real collapse will be something nobody sees coming. $380 billion in cash is his answer because he believes things are about to get much worse.

Warren Buffett just warned that the US dollar could collapse and admitted he doesn't understand most of the stock market anymore. 95 years old, sitting on $380 billion in cash, and the first time watching from the sidelines instead of actively investing. And what he revealed at this weekend's Berkshire shareholder meeting is genuinely concerning: On the market, Buffett didn't hold back. He compared it to "a church with a casino attached" and said the casino has never been more packed. On one-day options: "That is not investing. It's not speculating. It's gambling. Totally." He pointed to the Avis short squeeze THIS WEEK. A rental car company that's been around for 50 years getting meme-squeezed in 2026. The same behavior that blew up retail traders with GameStop is back, except now it's hitting boring legacy companies with zero business being volatile. "We have lots more regulation now, but people spend their time figuring out how to get around the rules rather than follow the rules." That one sentence explains more about the current market than every CNBC segment combined. When asked why he's hoarding $380 billion instead of investing it, Buffett said something no one expected: "I understand fewer of the businesses as a percentage of the whole than I did 10 years ago. I have not learned new industries for some years. I'm not going to have an edge on a whole bunch of younger people that have actually grown up with it." Think about what he's actually saying... This is a man who made $140 billion by understanding businesses better than anyone alive. And he's telling you the current market is so detached from reality that even HE can't make sense of what's being valued and why. He quoted IBM's Tom Watson Sr.: "I'm smart in spots and I stay around those spots." In 60 years of managing money, he said MAYBE five were "really juicy." Five out of sixty. That means 92% of his career was spent WAITING while everyone else gambled. And he still ended up richer than all of them. Then the conversation turned to inflation and that's where it gets really interesting: Buffett said America is "not immune" from runaway inflation. He brought up countries that went bankrupt "six or seven times" in his lifetime. Compared today to right before Volcker had to rescue the dollar, when Americans were borrowing at 12% to buy farmland earning 6% because they believed the dollar would disappear. "Cash is trash" was the mentality. Nebraska farmers collapsed because of it. Entire communities wiped out not by a recession but by a BELIEF that the currency was dying. And Buffett sees that same energy building again. Then someone asked the question everyone wanted answered: Do you see a crash coming? "If you saw it coming, it wouldn't happen. The things people are talking about and thinking about? It's not going to happen. But there are things that can come out of the blue." He compared it to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 that triggered World War I. Nobody was discussing or anticipating it. But it changed the world overnight. "That's particularly true now because of the things that can come out of the sky." A 95yo man who has survived every crash, every war, every crisis of the last six decades just told you the market is a casino, the dollar isn't safe, and the real collapse will be something nobody sees coming. $380 billion in cash is his answer because he believes things are about to get much worse.

Ricardo

1,645,725 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

WARREN BUFFETT’S ONE CRITICAL PIECE OF ADVICE DURING A STOCK MARKET BUBBLE During the dot-com bubble, Warren Buffett was asked about stocks skyrocketing 100–200% in a matter of weeks. His response was a timeless reminder: - "We've had a lot of speculative activity and all kinds of things over the years in markets and it frequently doesn't come to a good end" - "But it will be with us 100 years from now just as it was a 100 years ago" - "There is a lot of action and people are day trading and that sort of thing" - "I have one piece i'd give is ...DON'T DO IT ON BORROWED MONEY" Buffett warned that many people eventually get wiped out because stocks don’t go up forever, valuations can become extreme, and if you’re leveraged when prices fall, you don’t get to play out your hand. W e’re seeing similar speculative surges today in sectors like quantum computing, nuclear, and flying cars. Whatever you do: **Do NOT gamble with borrowed money. One bad day is all it takes to end the game.**

WARREN BUFFETT’S ONE CRITICAL PIECE OF ADVICE DURING A STOCK MARKET BUBBLE During the dot-com bubble, Warren Buffett was asked about stocks skyrocketing 100–200% in a matter of weeks. His response was a timeless reminder: - "We've had a lot of speculative activity and all kinds of things over the years in markets and it frequently doesn't come to a good end" - "But it will be with us 100 years from now just as it was a 100 years ago" - "There is a lot of action and people are day trading and that sort of thing" - "I have one piece i'd give is ...DON'T DO IT ON BORROWED MONEY" Buffett warned that many people eventually get wiped out because stocks don’t go up forever, valuations can become extreme, and if you’re leveraged when prices fall, you don’t get to play out your hand. W e’re seeing similar speculative surges today in sectors like quantum computing, nuclear, and flying cars. Whatever you do: Do NOT gamble with borrowed money. One bad day is all it takes to end the game.

Common Sense Investor (CSI)

39,877 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Warren Buffett on economists and stock market predictions: “They don’t make a lot of money buying and selling stocks — but people who buy and sell stocks listen to them.” ___ The lesson is one Buffett has reinforced throughout his entire career. He and Munger never spent much time on macro. Interest rates, GDP forecasts, credit cycles — largely irrelevant to the actual work of investing. At the end of the day, all that matters is what a business is worth — and what it’s trading for today. Everything else is noise dressed up as “insight.” Even Keynes — one of the greatest economic minds in history — tried predicting macro variables to pick stocks. He went broke a couple of times doing it and only found success when he abandoned that approach entirely and settled on buying good businesses cheap, in concentrated positions, that he truly understood. ___ 🎙️ CNBC Interview (02/29/2016)

Warren Buffett on economists and stock market predictions: “They don’t make a lot of money buying and selling stocks — but people who buy and sell stocks listen to them.” _ The lesson is one Buffett has reinforced throughout his entire career. He and Munger never spent much time on macro. Interest rates, GDP forecasts, credit cycles — largely irrelevant to the actual work of investing. At the end of the day, all that matters is what a business is worth — and what it’s trading for today. Everything else is noise dressed up as “insight.” Even Keynes — one of the greatest economic minds in history — tried predicting macro variables to pick stocks. He went broke a couple of times doing it and only found success when he abandoned that approach entirely and settled on buying good businesses cheap, in concentrated positions, that he truly understood. _ 🎙️ CNBC Interview (02/29/2016)

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®

37,244 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Warren Buffett reveals the underpricing test behind Apple's iPhone: a $1,000 device can be worth more than a $1 million plane. "I do not focus on the sales in the next quarter or the next year." "Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of people practically live their lives by it." "That little piece of whatever it is, that is some of the most valuable real estate in the world." "They spend hours a day." "It is part of their habit of living." "If we did not have it, you could not sell them anything else. They either went next door or they came back." "The iPhone 10 cost $1,000 and that is a lot of money." "I have a plane that costs me maybe a million dollars a year." "I would rather give up the plane, which is a million or a million and a half a year, for something that costs $1,000." "The iPhone is enormously underpriced." That is the replacement-friction test. The moat is not just usage. It is what customers refuse to substitute when supply disappears, prices rise, or a cheaper alternative shows up. Before you optimize conversion, pricing, or retention, ask the Buffett question: what would your best customer give up before giving up you? - Warren Buffett on CNBC

Warren Buffett reveals the underpricing test behind Apple's iPhone: a $1,000 device can be worth more than a $1 million plane. "I do not focus on the sales in the next quarter or the next year." "Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of people practically live their lives by it." "That little piece of whatever it is, that is some of the most valuable real estate in the world." "They spend hours a day." "It is part of their habit of living." "If we did not have it, you could not sell them anything else. They either went next door or they came back." "The iPhone 10 cost $1,000 and that is a lot of money." "I have a plane that costs me maybe a million dollars a year." "I would rather give up the plane, which is a million or a million and a half a year, for something that costs $1,000." "The iPhone is enormously underpriced." That is the replacement-friction test. The moat is not just usage. It is what customers refuse to substitute when supply disappears, prices rise, or a cheaper alternative shows up. Before you optimize conversion, pricing, or retention, ask the Buffett question: what would your best customer give up before giving up you? - Warren Buffett on CNBC

andrew engler

232,631 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I don’t think enough people are talking about Local Law 97 in New York City. It’s a carbon tax on the real estate industry in one of its largest markets in the world. This has profound implications for the real estate industry not just in New York City, but across the United States: This sort of regulation is on the docket in a whole bunch of cities. Cities are largely progressive. The real estate industry is concentrated in cities and also cities’ largest source of carbon emissions. So it follows that local regulation by America’s mayors is going to have a gigantic impact on the real estate industry, as cities enact regulations to decarbonize. So for New York City, Local Law 97 goes into effect next year. The good news is, under next year’s emission standards, about 80% of buildings should make the cut. But by 2030, as the emissions standards intensity, only about 25% of buildings would make the cut without any retrofitting. Yes, retrofitting is expensive. And it gets more expensive the older the building is. New York City has a lot of pre-war buildings. But it’s a fact that sustainable buildings are worth more money—it’s true today as much as it will be true in the future when LL97 is in effect. So real estate owners need to spend the money now to retrofit their assets in preparation for Local Law 97, and it’ll pay dividends in the future, because sustainability is good business. Overall I think a regulatory imperative for the real estate industry is a good thing. It’s going to lead to more sustainable buildings and more valuable assets that have more functional longevity to them, preparing the real estate industry for the future. For what it’s worth, there are two other forces converging upon the real estate industry and forcing it to decarbonize: Capital markets: Preferentially deploying capital to sustainable assets Private markets: The biggest tenants have ambitious sustainability pledges, and the real estate industry is a huge part of the supply chain to someone like Walmart or Amazon or Netflix. They don’t want to lease an inefficient building.

I don’t think enough people are talking about Local Law 97 in New York City. It’s a carbon tax on the real estate industry in one of its largest markets in the world. This has profound implications for the real estate industry not just in New York City, but across the United States: This sort of regulation is on the docket in a whole bunch of cities. Cities are largely progressive. The real estate industry is concentrated in cities and also cities’ largest source of carbon emissions. So it follows that local regulation by America’s mayors is going to have a gigantic impact on the real estate industry, as cities enact regulations to decarbonize. So for New York City, Local Law 97 goes into effect next year. The good news is, under next year’s emission standards, about 80% of buildings should make the cut. But by 2030, as the emissions standards intensity, only about 25% of buildings would make the cut without any retrofitting. Yes, retrofitting is expensive. And it gets more expensive the older the building is. New York City has a lot of pre-war buildings. But it’s a fact that sustainable buildings are worth more money—it’s true today as much as it will be true in the future when LL97 is in effect. So real estate owners need to spend the money now to retrofit their assets in preparation for Local Law 97, and it’ll pay dividends in the future, because sustainability is good business. Overall I think a regulatory imperative for the real estate industry is a good thing. It’s going to lead to more sustainable buildings and more valuable assets that have more functional longevity to them, preparing the real estate industry for the future. For what it’s worth, there are two other forces converging upon the real estate industry and forcing it to decarbonize: Capital markets: Preferentially deploying capital to sustainable assets Private markets: The biggest tenants have ambitious sustainability pledges, and the real estate industry is a huge part of the supply chain to someone like Walmart or Amazon or Netflix. They don’t want to lease an inefficient building.

Brendan Wallace

24,033 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Warren Buffett says using leverage is foolish. Why risk what you have and need to chase what you do not have and do not need? No matter the odds, if the downside is everything, do not do it. He is right. But real estate is a different game. That rule is built for paper. Pull up Sam Zell or the other people I follow, and you get a completely different answer. Here is the real difference. Paper is paper. Real estate is control. I do not love the paper world. I do not like the volatility, and I do not feel like I can control it. Control is the whole thing. I control the debt I take on. The interest rate. The monthly payment. And I never over-leverage. I control the apartments too. The occupancy. The expenses. The rents, to the extent the market lets me. Paper gives me none of that. I do not understand it well enough to control it, and it does not have the predictability real estate does. Now the harder question. If I paid everything off and sat on 600 million debt-free, would my life really change versus 1.5 billion with 900 million in debt? Honestly, no. I do not personally need more. But that is not what this is about anymore. I am running a legacy play now. My kids are involved. This is succession. He is not wrong about leverage. It just depends on what you can actually control.

Warren Buffett says using leverage is foolish. Why risk what you have and need to chase what you do not have and do not need? No matter the odds, if the downside is everything, do not do it. He is right. But real estate is a different game. That rule is built for paper. Pull up Sam Zell or the other people I follow, and you get a completely different answer. Here is the real difference. Paper is paper. Real estate is control. I do not love the paper world. I do not like the volatility, and I do not feel like I can control it. Control is the whole thing. I control the debt I take on. The interest rate. The monthly payment. And I never over-leverage. I control the apartments too. The occupancy. The expenses. The rents, to the extent the market lets me. Paper gives me none of that. I do not understand it well enough to control it, and it does not have the predictability real estate does. Now the harder question. If I paid everything off and sat on 600 million debt-free, would my life really change versus 1.5 billion with 900 million in debt? Honestly, no. I do not personally need more. But that is not what this is about anymore. I am running a legacy play now. My kids are involved. This is succession. He is not wrong about leverage. It just depends on what you can actually control.

Ken McElroy

12,472 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Warren Buffett explains why great investing isn't about comparing every new opportunity to your greatest success. At a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, a shareholder asked why several major Berkshire investments were structured so differently. Goldman Sachs received $5 billion at 10% plus warrants. General Electric got similar terms. Dow Chemical's deal came with an 8.5% convertible structure. Mars/Wrigley paid 11.45%, while Swiss Re paid 12%. Why weren't the deals priced the same? Buffett's answer was simple. Each investment was made at a different point in time, under different market conditions, with different alternatives available. As he explained: "Our opportunity costs were different in every single one of those five transactions." The deciding factor wasn't the company itself. It was what Berkshire could have done with its capital at that specific moment. Buffett also acknowledged that capital allocation is never perfect. "We could have done a much better, I could have done a much better job of allocating our money." And with characteristic humility, he added: "We not only don't have perfect foresight, sometimes it's pretty, it's pretty bad." When Buffett evaluates an investment, he doesn't compare it to decisions he made years earlier. He compares it to the alternatives available today. Discussing Berkshire's investment in Swiss Re, he said: "I was thinking about what else I could do with $2.7 billion dollars. And that, that's the way all the decisions are made." Every investment passes through the same filter: What opportunities exist right now? What is the best use of capital today? Which option offers the most attractive balance of risk and reward? Past wins don't factor into the decision. As Buffett put it, previous deals "don't really make any difference." That leads to one of the biggest mistakes he believes investors make. "One of the errors people make in business, and sometimes it can be a huge error, is that they try and measure every deal against the best deal that they've ever made." The problem is psychological. Once people anchor themselves to their greatest investment, acquisition, or trade, every future opportunity can seem disappointing by comparison. Instead of making solid decisions, they wait endlessly for another perfect one. Eventually, they stop acting altogether. Buffett warns that by doing so, "they, in effect, sometimes they take themselves out of the game." His philosophy is far more practical. "The goal is not to make a better deal than you've ever made before; the goal is to make a satisfactory deal. It's the best deal that you can make at the time." Investing isn't about constantly setting new personal records. It's about allocating capital intelligently based on the information and opportunities available today. In Buffett's view, there's only one rational way to judge a decision: Did you make the best choice you could with what you knew at the time? As he concludes: "There's no other rational way to make deals." Source: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting (2009) – Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger Q&A

Warren Buffett explains why great investing isn't about comparing every new opportunity to your greatest success. At a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, a shareholder asked why several major Berkshire investments were structured so differently. Goldman Sachs received $5 billion at 10% plus warrants. General Electric got similar terms. Dow Chemical's deal came with an 8.5% convertible structure. Mars/Wrigley paid 11.45%, while Swiss Re paid 12%. Why weren't the deals priced the same? Buffett's answer was simple. Each investment was made at a different point in time, under different market conditions, with different alternatives available. As he explained: "Our opportunity costs were different in every single one of those five transactions." The deciding factor wasn't the company itself. It was what Berkshire could have done with its capital at that specific moment. Buffett also acknowledged that capital allocation is never perfect. "We could have done a much better, I could have done a much better job of allocating our money." And with characteristic humility, he added: "We not only don't have perfect foresight, sometimes it's pretty, it's pretty bad." When Buffett evaluates an investment, he doesn't compare it to decisions he made years earlier. He compares it to the alternatives available today. Discussing Berkshire's investment in Swiss Re, he said: "I was thinking about what else I could do with $2.7 billion dollars. And that, that's the way all the decisions are made." Every investment passes through the same filter: What opportunities exist right now? What is the best use of capital today? Which option offers the most attractive balance of risk and reward? Past wins don't factor into the decision. As Buffett put it, previous deals "don't really make any difference." That leads to one of the biggest mistakes he believes investors make. "One of the errors people make in business, and sometimes it can be a huge error, is that they try and measure every deal against the best deal that they've ever made." The problem is psychological. Once people anchor themselves to their greatest investment, acquisition, or trade, every future opportunity can seem disappointing by comparison. Instead of making solid decisions, they wait endlessly for another perfect one. Eventually, they stop acting altogether. Buffett warns that by doing so, "they, in effect, sometimes they take themselves out of the game." His philosophy is far more practical. "The goal is not to make a better deal than you've ever made before; the goal is to make a satisfactory deal. It's the best deal that you can make at the time." Investing isn't about constantly setting new personal records. It's about allocating capital intelligently based on the information and opportunities available today. In Buffett's view, there's only one rational way to judge a decision: Did you make the best choice you could with what you knew at the time? As he concludes: "There's no other rational way to make deals." Source: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting (2009) – Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger Q&A

Black Edge

12,029 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Warren Buffett: "If we can't make a decision in five minutes, we can't make it in five months." In a Q&A, a shareholder from Munich, Germany asks Buffett a specific question: how large is the universe of companies whose intrinsic value he carries in his head — the ones he could act on within a day or two if the market offered an attractive price? Buffett doesn't give a number. He reframes the question entirely. Speed, he explains, doesn't come from knowing more. It comes from refusing to think about most things at all. "Our immediate decision is whether we can figure out what's being offered to us or not. I mean, there's a go no-go signal." That signal fires almost immediately: "Charlie and I are often thought to be rude when we think we're just being polite and not wasting the other person's time. So, as they start mid-sentence in their first conversation with us, we just say, 'Forget it.'" He continues: "We know very, very, very early in the conversation whether somebody's talking about something that there's any chance is actionable by us, and we don't worry about the ones we miss." The filter isn't about the quality of the opportunity. It's about whether Buffett is equipped to judge it: "We want to make sure that we don't waste any time thinking about things that, when we got all through thinking about them, we're not going to know enough to make the decision on. So we just rule those out, and that rules a lot of things out." What survives that filter gets decided on immediately: "So we make decisions—we can make a decision in five minutes very easily. I mean, it just is not that complicated." Then comes the line that explains the whole system: "If we can't make a decision in five minutes, we can't make it in five months. You know, there's—we're not going to learn enough in the following five months to make up for the fact that we went in deficient in the first place." Deliberation doesn't fix a knowledge deficit. If you weren't already competent to judge the thing, five months of study won't close the gap — it will only manufacture the confidence to act badly. So when the input arrives — a phone call about a business for sale, or a price in a newspaper, a magazine, an annual report, a 10-K — the only thing Buffett is looking for is a "significant differential between price and value." If it's there, "we move right then." "And Charlie and I don't need to talk to each other about it; I mean, we both think the same way and we have generally similar spheres of knowledge." Charlie Munger then names the mechanism directly: "The answer to your question is we can make a lot of decisions about a lot of things very fast and very easily, and we're unusual in that respect. And the reason we're able to do that is there's such an enormous other lot of things that we won't allow ourselves to think about at all. It's just that simple." He gives his own example: "I have a little phrase when people make pitches to me, and about halfway through the first sentence I say, 'We don't do startups; they don't exist.' Well, if you blot out startups, there's a whole layer of complexity that goes out of your life." And he confirms this is a system, not a one-off: "And we've got other little 'blotter out' systems, and using those we finally find out that what remains is still a pretty large territory that we can handle." Buffett closes with the part most people get backwards: "We waste—I would say we waste a lot of time, but we waste it on things we want to waste our time on. And then we're very selective about that, and then we're good at it." The five-minute decision is not actually made in five minutes. Source: 2008 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting

Warren Buffett: "If we can't make a decision in five minutes, we can't make it in five months." In a Q&A, a shareholder from Munich, Germany asks Buffett a specific question: how large is the universe of companies whose intrinsic value he carries in his head — the ones he could act on within a day or two if the market offered an attractive price? Buffett doesn't give a number. He reframes the question entirely. Speed, he explains, doesn't come from knowing more. It comes from refusing to think about most things at all. "Our immediate decision is whether we can figure out what's being offered to us or not. I mean, there's a go no-go signal." That signal fires almost immediately: "Charlie and I are often thought to be rude when we think we're just being polite and not wasting the other person's time. So, as they start mid-sentence in their first conversation with us, we just say, 'Forget it.'" He continues: "We know very, very, very early in the conversation whether somebody's talking about something that there's any chance is actionable by us, and we don't worry about the ones we miss." The filter isn't about the quality of the opportunity. It's about whether Buffett is equipped to judge it: "We want to make sure that we don't waste any time thinking about things that, when we got all through thinking about them, we're not going to know enough to make the decision on. So we just rule those out, and that rules a lot of things out." What survives that filter gets decided on immediately: "So we make decisions—we can make a decision in five minutes very easily. I mean, it just is not that complicated." Then comes the line that explains the whole system: "If we can't make a decision in five minutes, we can't make it in five months. You know, there's—we're not going to learn enough in the following five months to make up for the fact that we went in deficient in the first place." Deliberation doesn't fix a knowledge deficit. If you weren't already competent to judge the thing, five months of study won't close the gap — it will only manufacture the confidence to act badly. So when the input arrives — a phone call about a business for sale, or a price in a newspaper, a magazine, an annual report, a 10-K — the only thing Buffett is looking for is a "significant differential between price and value." If it's there, "we move right then." "And Charlie and I don't need to talk to each other about it; I mean, we both think the same way and we have generally similar spheres of knowledge." Charlie Munger then names the mechanism directly: "The answer to your question is we can make a lot of decisions about a lot of things very fast and very easily, and we're unusual in that respect. And the reason we're able to do that is there's such an enormous other lot of things that we won't allow ourselves to think about at all. It's just that simple." He gives his own example: "I have a little phrase when people make pitches to me, and about halfway through the first sentence I say, 'We don't do startups; they don't exist.' Well, if you blot out startups, there's a whole layer of complexity that goes out of your life." And he confirms this is a system, not a one-off: "And we've got other little 'blotter out' systems, and using those we finally find out that what remains is still a pretty large territory that we can handle." Buffett closes with the part most people get backwards: "We waste—I would say we waste a lot of time, but we waste it on things we want to waste our time on. And then we're very selective about that, and then we're good at it." The five-minute decision is not actually made in five minutes. Source: 2008 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting

Finance Nerd

54,048 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

Howard Marks just gave a warning about the current stock market environment, boldly claiming we are in a stock market bubble Here's what he said: "It does seem that stocks are expensive relative to what I call fundamentals or you might call reality. The outstanding reason is that there hasn't been a serious market correction in 16 years. So people get out of the habit of thinking about market corrections. The biggest single mistake I've been thinking a lot - what is the biggest single mistake investors make? And I've concluded that it is that they conclude that the way things are today is the way it will always be. And the things that have been happening will always continue to happen. Whereas reversion to the mean is much more likely. So I just think that it's worked very well. Being an equity investor has worked very well. Doing it on leverage has worked even better. Concentrating in a few stocks has gone very well. Investors are by nature optimistic, and that optimism dies hard. And I just think that the fluctuations of the market are mostly related to psychological fluctuations, and people go from neutrality to liking stocks to liking them a lot to liking them a ton to liking them too much. And that's the continuation that creates bubbles. And you know where we probably in the early days of that when you talk about liking these assets a little bit too much."

Howard Marks just gave a warning about the current stock market environment, boldly claiming we are in a stock market bubble Here's what he said: "It does seem that stocks are expensive relative to what I call fundamentals or you might call reality. The outstanding reason is that there hasn't been a serious market correction in 16 years. So people get out of the habit of thinking about market corrections. The biggest single mistake I've been thinking a lot - what is the biggest single mistake investors make? And I've concluded that it is that they conclude that the way things are today is the way it will always be. And the things that have been happening will always continue to happen. Whereas reversion to the mean is much more likely. So I just think that it's worked very well. Being an equity investor has worked very well. Doing it on leverage has worked even better. Concentrating in a few stocks has gone very well. Investors are by nature optimistic, and that optimism dies hard. And I just think that the fluctuations of the market are mostly related to psychological fluctuations, and people go from neutrality to liking stocks to liking them a lot to liking them a ton to liking them too much. And that's the continuation that creates bubbles. And you know where we probably in the early days of that when you talk about liking these assets a little bit too much."

Triple Net Investor

43,952 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$Real estate has a simple problem that people don’t always say out loud: it’s not designed for partial participation. You either have enough money to buy in properly, or you don’t. There’s usually no “in-between.” And once you do invest, your money is tied up for a long time. Selling isn’t instant and flexibility is limited. So even though real estate is seen as a solid way to build wealth, a lot of people are effectively locked out... not by lack of interest but by how the system is structured. That’s the gap APARTCHAIN is focused on. APARTCHAIN is a platform that turns real estate into something you can invest in fractionally. Instead of buying an entire property, the ownership is divided into digital shares (tokens), and investors can buy a portion that fits their budget. So rather than needing large capital, you’re able to take smaller positions in actual properties. Here’s how it works in practice: • APARTCHAIN acquires real estate • The property is split into multiple ownership shares • Investors buy those shares on-chain • Rental income from the property is distributed to shareholders • When the property is eventually sold, any profit is also shared So your return comes from two places: ongoing rental income and potential appreciation when the property is sold. Now, fractional real estate isn’t a brand-new idea. What makes APARTCHAIN different is how it’s positioned. It operates within Kazakhstan’s regulatory framework, with oversight connected to the country’s national financial authority. That’s a key detail because a lot of tokenization platforms operate without clear local regulation. Here, the structure is built to align with an existing legal system, not bypass it. On the technical side, it runs on a blockchain network designed for low fees and fast transactions. That means buying, holding or transferring your share doesn’t come with the heavy costs or delays typically associated with traditional property processes. There’s also no strict lock-in at the protocol level... you’re not forced to hold your position for a fixed period. But in reality, your ability to exit depends on the secondary market, which is still developing. So liquidity exists, but it’s not fully mature yet. It’s also worth being clear about the risks. Property values can go up or down. Rental income isn’t guaranteed and because this system relies on smart contracts, there’s a technical layer that traditional real estate doesn’t have. On top of that, the platform itself is still growing. Property inventory is limited for now and the resale market for shares is still building. That said, it’s not just an idea on paper... APARTCHAIN has already completed at least one full investment cycle... acquiring a property, generating returns, and exiting. That matters because it shows the model can actually function beyond theory. So at the core, this isn’t really about “changing real estate” in some dramatic way. It’s about removing the all-or-nothing barrier that’s always surrounded it. And that leaves a simple question: if you could start building exposure to real estate without needing to go all in from day one, would more people actually step in earlier or would they still wait until it feels “big enough” to matter? Superteam Kazakhstan || APARTCHAIN$

Real estate has a simple problem that people don’t always say out loud: it’s not designed for partial participation. You either have enough money to buy in properly, or you don’t. There’s usually no “in-between.” And once you do invest, your money is tied up for a long time. Selling isn’t instant and flexibility is limited. So even though real estate is seen as a solid way to build wealth, a lot of people are effectively locked out... not by lack of interest but by how the system is structured. That’s the gap APARTCHAIN is focused on. APARTCHAIN is a platform that turns real estate into something you can invest in fractionally. Instead of buying an entire property, the ownership is divided into digital shares (tokens), and investors can buy a portion that fits their budget. So rather than needing large capital, you’re able to take smaller positions in actual properties. Here’s how it works in practice: • APARTCHAIN acquires real estate • The property is split into multiple ownership shares • Investors buy those shares on-chain • Rental income from the property is distributed to shareholders • When the property is eventually sold, any profit is also shared So your return comes from two places: ongoing rental income and potential appreciation when the property is sold. Now, fractional real estate isn’t a brand-new idea. What makes APARTCHAIN different is how it’s positioned. It operates within Kazakhstan’s regulatory framework, with oversight connected to the country’s national financial authority. That’s a key detail because a lot of tokenization platforms operate without clear local regulation. Here, the structure is built to align with an existing legal system, not bypass it. On the technical side, it runs on a blockchain network designed for low fees and fast transactions. That means buying, holding or transferring your share doesn’t come with the heavy costs or delays typically associated with traditional property processes. There’s also no strict lock-in at the protocol level... you’re not forced to hold your position for a fixed period. But in reality, your ability to exit depends on the secondary market, which is still developing. So liquidity exists, but it’s not fully mature yet. It’s also worth being clear about the risks. Property values can go up or down. Rental income isn’t guaranteed and because this system relies on smart contracts, there’s a technical layer that traditional real estate doesn’t have. On top of that, the platform itself is still growing. Property inventory is limited for now and the resale market for shares is still building. That said, it’s not just an idea on paper... APARTCHAIN has already completed at least one full investment cycle... acquiring a property, generating returns, and exiting. That matters because it shows the model can actually function beyond theory. So at the core, this isn’t really about “changing real estate” in some dramatic way. It’s about removing the all-or-nothing barrier that’s always surrounded it. And that leaves a simple question: if you could start building exposure to real estate without needing to go all in from day one, would more people actually step in earlier or would they still wait until it feels “big enough” to matter? Superteam Kazakhstan || APARTCHAIN

Jessica♡🛡

105,405 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Cea Weaver says the quiet part out loud.... "We decided that fighting for rent control was a strategic and critical first step in the fight for full social housing... We decided that through a program like rent control, we are able to directly challenge the logic of unfettered profit in the real estate market. We are able to directly challenge housing as a wealth-building tool and, through regulation, strike a blow to the entire real estate industry at once. The beauty of rent stabilization and rent control is that it weakens the speculative value of the real estate asset. The value is no longer based on what the landlord is able to get, but rather it’s based on a state public board deciding how much rent is going up. And yes, that board is controlled by the real estate industry, and yes, there could be a better way to regulate it. But the idea is that we could weaken the entire industry at once through a strong rent control campaign, and that would strengthen our ability to fight for social housing.” Serious question: How is this constitutional?

Cea Weaver says the quiet part out loud.... "We decided that fighting for rent control was a strategic and critical first step in the fight for full social housing... We decided that through a program like rent control, we are able to directly challenge the logic of unfettered profit in the real estate market. We are able to directly challenge housing as a wealth-building tool and, through regulation, strike a blow to the entire real estate industry at once. The beauty of rent stabilization and rent control is that it weakens the speculative value of the real estate asset. The value is no longer based on what the landlord is able to get, but rather it’s based on a state public board deciding how much rent is going up. And yes, that board is controlled by the real estate industry, and yes, there could be a better way to regulate it. But the idea is that we could weaken the entire industry at once through a strong rent control campaign, and that would strengthen our ability to fight for social housing.” Serious question: How is this constitutional?

Michelle Tandler

612,915 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten