3rdDeviation

I get the feeling this kind of activity is misunderstood and perceived as repugnant because, unlike most investment options, this one is actively creating haves and have-nots.

Most other investments are fractional, meaning there's a pool of the same asset available to many investors and your purchase doesn't necessarily limit their opportunity. But when you're "investing" in your first home, it's not a decision between safe or unsafe investments, debt or equity (or crypto) - it's a combination of needs and wants. And oftentimes you're in direct competition with someone who wants to make the same investment.

In this case, losers are forced to reallocate more of their income to cover rents and winners are alleviated of that same burden. When the winner is an investor with multiple homes, mom & pop or not, they are claiming the same rents that burden those who have lost their chances to invest because of competition.

Personally, I think people need to start thinking on moral terms when they look to invest their money into rental homes. I've never seen somebody who owns multiple homes actually put any sweat into their equity. At least, none of their own sweat. And rental properties are almost never maintained - they slowly slide into oblivion because every decision is a cash flow decision. When you own the home, the decision to maintain the property reflects personal and social influences, not just long-term returns.

You could go the other direction -increasing the borrowing cost of purchasing a home for investment to ensure that borrowers with less capital can still afford homes in the same market.

As a hypothetical, you could tax their purchase at the same rate at which they're borrowing and use the funds to back loan guarantees for new/lower income purchasers.

The point is to impair the ROI for multi-home purchasers without limiting upside in the market.

Visionary, well done. Then comes the claim that AGI can unwind the spaghetti, and then the reality check.

I, for one, welcome our new LLM overlords.

I think that's a misplaced analogy.

The farmer owns the farm and benefits directly from the improvement in operating margins. A software engineer does not own the farm, only the owner would benefit from improved productivity. They're actually getting paid less per hour given they're more productive in this hypothetical.

Would tend to agree with most of that, but I think the assertion is Petey needed to ask his IT leadership to do the due diligence before diving in, not that he needed to decide using his own depth of skills and experience.

I assume he did and they said it was a bad idea - the memo they'd released a few weeks prior about Signal vulnerabilities seems to suggest a lack of faith in that approach - but he was already banging away on his phone with all the grocery reminders and definitely not battle plans he needs to keep pushing out. Which is also how it feels in the enterprise space these days.

Strange thing to see our bureaucracy start to behave like a corporation instead of the other way around.

As in, go harvest some of that market volatility? Definitely looking on the brighter side of things, hat tip to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model?wp...