acquiring many properties in the name of owning an asset

[Cryptoprincess101]

It baffles me how some wealthy people in our society, instead of owning few productive properties that will stand as assets which will generate proceeds for them, they often enter into owning so many properties which some of them are left in dilapidated state and some of these wealthy men doesn't even know how many properties they've got because of how numerous they have become and sometimes some of the people who either stand as agents, witnesses or attorney that was involved in the business dealings hijacks some of these properties without the knowledge of the owner simply because they also have some of the owners documents in their possession.
                      For sure we are meant to acquire assets that will stand out for us in the future especially a time when we will no longer have much experience, energy and strength to work again in order to earn a living so our assets gives us the liberty to enjoy the fruits of our labour when we get old and these asset also stands as aid to people around us more especially our offsprings or relatives who are very dear to us at a time when we answer the "call of nature" (death).
                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

[Hatchy]

It's a thing of choice though as some people just prefer owning some properties just for owning sake. They don't mind if their property aren't productive, they just continue to acquire the wealth regardless. Some on the other hand, own properties for future sake, like for their children to acquire them when they become old enough. But to me, it would still be better to get properties that would earn us some reasonable amount of income continually for a long term. You don't actually have to limit your property, you can continue acquiring if you have enough money to buy more.

[cabron]

It's something they can brag though. There must be a plan before they think of buying those properties otherwise there won't be a reason to buy them. Or they just speculate the price of these properties will go up in the future as it usually does. Whether it's productive or not, it's still an investment.

The rich retired men are always talking about the stuff they own. Makes them look richer than their friends. As if they can bring those properties with them when they die but at least they can give them to their beloved sons and daughters.

[Despairo]

As long as they have money and the country allow people to own property as many as they want, they can buy many properties including the unproductive ones. Advisable or not, if it can make you to earn a lot money in the future, why not? I believe if you're the rich, you will buy as many as you can and didn't care at all with people who want to buy properties.

We still have an option to move to underdeveloped country if you want to buy property.

[Sky_T]

                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

For me I will actually say is not advisable to own too many properties that are not yielding any valuable result. Owning too many properties here and there can only lead to divided attention. But when you have few assets, you can be able to control, manage and established it to any standard of your choice that will make it more productive. Remember the saying 'A bird at hand is worth more better than two in the bush'.

[AbuBhakar]

                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

Of course this is not efficient way of investment since you don’t total control on how you will manage your asset therefore your is just sleeping/losing in an asset that is not performing well for a long time.

Fiat money is depreciating its buying power due to inflation so you will just waste your money power if you will invest it on non moving assets. Bank interest is much better compared to this dead assets since they might turn into liabilities once it’s starting to give you losses in long term just because you didn’t notice it anymore.

[Alpha Marine]

This usually happens in a country without a proper system. In developed countries, the taxes you'll pay on those properties won't allow a person to have a property that is unproductive while paying tax on it. So it's either they'll make it productive so paying the taxes won't be a problem they'll sell it off.
But in a country where the rich get away with anything, nobody bothers them about taxes, especially if they're in bed with government agents. They can legit have no idea about the state of a property or asset.

It's good to own assets and properties, but having something more of a liability than an asset is not very prudent. It simply means you're taking profit from somewhere else to fund the expenses of the other which would mean running a loss. The goal is to make a profit and one of the ways of making profits is to minimise cost as much as possible while maintaining an above-standard production

[uneng]

                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

If the properties are unproductive, they can't bring proportionate any aid for us in the future... Therefore, it doesn't make sense to own them, because besides bringing extra expenses to the owner (as we have to pay yearly tributes over our properties), there are also risks the government seize them due to the properties not being used by the owner. So the government takes the property for itself, auction it or give it to the poors through social welfare programs.

Usually, this kind of situation is more common among heirs who received lots of properties from their ancestors and don't know how to maintain their productiveness or how to adapt the properties to the circumstances an demands of the present moment. Then they become obsolete. Internal disputes between family members is also a common reason why we see decaying unused properties.

[alani123]

Hello and welcome to capitalism. In order to proceed you need to abandon all common sense 

If someone gets rich, he can acquire so many means of production that there would be no reasonable way to control them all on his own. Capitalism rewards being rich by making you richer and also making everyone else comparatively poorer because the rich get richer but only at everyone else's expense.

But also owning property isn't a means of production. There's nothing productive about a house. A house is a basic necessity for one tombe able to produce. But it's not changing the state of anything. A house won't change raw rare earth to bars of metal, therefore adding value to them. A house just stands there in perpetuity. It requires no labour and produces no outcomes.

And also as OP said, those hoarding property have no reasonable way of controlling it all at once in their own. Much of it falls under delapitated states. Other times the quality of services provided to renters is extremely bad since no one attends to them etc. But what can you do? Nearly every country in the world has private property "rights" engrained in its constitution. In spite of history having proven again and again that wealth inequality leads to gross inequality, we fall in the same mistake. If you want to change this now there's nothing short of a revolution that could help. The real question is, who's really up for it?

[Cossyblack]

To owned numerous properties across the country isn't bad or illegal but part of investment. Infact if the wealthy people uses their excess Cash to build,owned and acquire various companies,build schools and health centres it will help to curb unemployment,poverty and crime in the society.So it is even encouraging for a wealthy/rich folks to acquire more assets.

[Adbitco]

What i understand why many people acquires series of properties or wealth is that they set it up for their generations as you can see the world is changing gradually and inflation is really eaten up almost all countries. At their time they may decide that acquired whatever property they feels like having this applicable to politicians who are on power and when they leave office they could used some of those properties to sustain themselves like they could decide to sell off any when time for needs arises.

Some of them ends setting up companies or businesses that could stand even when they aren't on power to help them when the needs arises also you must also know that no wealthy man who has tasted riches that would want to go low below their presents stands hence they try's all things possible to acquire as much many properties they could to maintain their Richie and some of these people also planned their lives include that of their family and relatives so they won't go broke or ever be poor again in their lineage.

[Lida93]

It baffles me how some wealthy people in our society, instead of owning few productive properties that will stand as assets which will generate proceeds for them, they often enter into owning so many properties which some of them are left in dilapidated state and some of these wealthy men doesn't even know how many properties they've got because of how numerous they have become and sometimes some of the people who either stand as agents, witnesses or attorney that was involved in the business dealings hijacks some of these properties without the knowledge of the owner simply because they also have some of the owners documents in their possession.
                      For sure we are meant to acquire assets that will stand out for us in the future especially a time when we will no longer have much experience, energy and strength to work again in order to earn a living so our assets gives us the liberty to enjoy the fruits of our labour when we get old and these asset also stands as aid to people around us more especially our offsprings or relatives who are very dear to us at a time when we answer the "call of nature" (death).
                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

owning large some of different properties is aimed at the expansion of networth which could largely deplete if it's been held in fiat currency. Where the laws doesn't give a restraint to the amount of properties an individual should acquire then there's nothing wrong about owning properties in any amount. It's a right.

The perspective of the wealthy and the average person on the street (probably a wage earner) about acquisition of assets of all sorts is quite different. It's common for the average person to conclude it to be a waste of funds but it's not so looking through the lens of the wealthy.

Yes, no argument about some of these properties getting into the hands of their lawyers and agents or caretakers but that often happen when the wealthy individual doesn't reveal to his family about all of those assets he possesses down to the least while he's still breathing.
 Or a suggestion which I feel could be useful to any opulent wealthy guy reading this; you probably could make a video record where you make list of all properties you own and their locations and documents and who is standing as a caretaker for it. By so doing you don't have to worry about losing them to strangers when you're gone. Cool!

[DiMarxist]

Op I understand your point. Many people have invested in different kind of properties that they don't even know most of their properties again and as a big man, you would not like to do most of the project like that and they sent people to do it and some of those unfaithful servants would convert some those projects to themselves l. I have witnessed this in my location. So I also prefer a wealthy man acquiring few assets that can provide good income for the owner than owing many properties that they can manage.
Dangote in Nigeria will face the same calamity because the guy wants to invest in all ramifications of business. Cement, Sugar, Rice, Salt, Oils, Floors, Indomie, noodles, Crude Oil etc. Which is wrong and this are some of the reasons why things are costly because there is no division of labor for workers. And everything centered in one man.

[Silberman]

It baffles me how some wealthy people in our society, instead of owning few productive properties that will stand as assets which will generate proceeds for them, they often enter into owning so many properties which some of them are left in dilapidated state and some of these wealthy men doesn't even know how many properties they've got because of how numerous they have become and sometimes some of the people who either stand as agents, witnesses or attorney that was involved in the business dealings hijacks some of these properties without the knowledge of the owner simply because they also have some of the owners documents in their possession.
                      For sure we are meant to acquire assets that will stand out for us in the future especially a time when we will no longer have much experience, energy and strength to work again in order to earn a living so our assets gives us the liberty to enjoy the fruits of our labour when we get old and these asset also stands as aid to people around us more especially our offsprings or relatives who are very dear to us at a time when we answer the "call of nature" (death).
                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

Both paths are valid, what happens is that if you chose the latter route then you need to keep an eye on those projects so they keep generating as much money as possible for you, however if a person is already tired of this as they have done it all their lives, or they simply do not want to pursue that kind of lifestyle, the former strategy makes more sense to them as they can buy a property, forget about it and later resell it at a higher price once the demand for that property has increased.

[Fortify]

It baffles me how some wealthy people in our society, instead of owning few productive properties that will stand as assets which will generate proceeds for them, they often enter into owning so many properties which some of them are left in dilapidated state and some of these wealthy men doesn't even know how many properties they've got because of how numerous they have become and sometimes some of the people who either stand as agents, witnesses or attorney that was involved in the business dealings hijacks some of these properties without the knowledge of the owner simply because they also have some of the owners documents in their possession.
                      For sure we are meant to acquire assets that will stand out for us in the future especially a time when we will no longer have much experience, energy and strength to work again in order to earn a living so our assets gives us the liberty to enjoy the fruits of our labour when we get old and these asset also stands as aid to people around us more especially our offsprings or relatives who are very dear to us at a time when we answer the "call of nature" (death).
                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

Many of these business people have a plan that ultimately works around leverage. If you are able to get the mortgage on ten properties with a 5% deposit on each, then get tenants to fill them (whether residential or corporate units) then they can hopefully pay off the building. If you're doing the same thing with only 5 properties and a 20% deposit on each, you have greater security (the person lending you the money takes on more risk) but will only have 5 builds at the end of it and not ten. It's a longer term strategy but when it pays off it gives the owners a lot more capital. Now, the government should definitely be stepping in if the owners are not correctly maintaining buildings as per their legal obligations, but that is another matter.

[milewilda]

It baffles me how some wealthy people in our society, instead of owning few productive properties that will stand as assets which will generate proceeds for them, they often enter into owning so many properties which some of them are left in dilapidated state and some of these wealthy men doesn't even know how many properties they've got because of how numerous they have become and sometimes some of the people who either stand as agents, witnesses or attorney that was involved in the business dealings hijacks some of these properties without the knowledge of the owner simply because they also have some of the owners documents in their possession.
                      For sure we are meant to acquire assets that will stand out for us in the future especially a time when we will no longer have much experience, energy and strength to work again in order to earn a living so our assets gives us the liberty to enjoy the fruits of our labour when we get old and these asset also stands as aid to people around us more especially our offsprings or relatives who are very dear to us at a time when we answer the "call of nature" (death).
                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

When you are already that rich then it would really be impossible that you wont really be having a lists about on the properties or buildings that you do have if ever you are focusing when it comes to real estate business on which this is something that will really be that unlikely that you will be forgetting. This is why on the moment that you do find yourself having that tons of source of income then it cant really be avoided that you might be missing up something but in my part then it would really be that impossible or unlikely yet when it comes to money management or business then i would really be monitoring everything. Speak about into those people who do have make use or abuse you because they do have SPA's? then it is possible but on the moment on acquiring  all the legal documents then there's no way these people would be able to get it in the end
on which simply means that your family or loved ones would really be still the one who would really be benefiting in the end.

It is really just that they might be taking up some advantage into you due to tons of properities you do have if ever you had forgotten but since you do have those documents
about its ownership then you would really be always have the edge.

[tabas]

If there are those people that have been involved on a deal and the owner doesn't have knowledge if these people are trying to take his properties, they shouldn't be confident about that. It seems that he's playing the part that he doesn't really care about his/her properties but in reality, they're all audited and he's knowledgeable with all of those because they're are all asset.

                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

If I am capable of owning properties, I'd acquire as much as I can. Others might not see how valuable they are if they're unproductive and the place isn't worth it for now. But as time passes by, the development continuous from area to area and that's where its value is going to increase. So, whichever is perfect for me, I'd buy as much as I can and as long as I can afford them whether it will generate passive income or not because the appreciation of each property is there.

[Richbased]

Op I understand your point. Many people have invested in different kind of properties that they don't even know most of their properties again and as a big man, you would not like to do most of the project like that and they sent people to do it and some of those unfaithful servants would convert some those projects to themselves l. I have witnessed this in my location. So I also prefer a wealthy man acquiring few assets that can provide good income for the owner than owing many properties that they can manage.
Dangote in Nigeria will face the same calamity because the guy wants to invest in all ramifications of business. Cement, Sugar, Rice, Salt, Oils, Floors, Indomie, noodles, Crude Oil etc. Which is wrong and this are some of the reasons why things are costly because there is no division of labor for workers. And everything centered in one man.

Most big men give less priority to some of their properties and focuses on just few that gives them high profits but acquiring properties just because you want to show off that you are a wealthy person to me is a waste of resources and money if there are assets that are bringing forth reasonable amount of money then they have to keep maintaining those assets and not buy too many properties. Acquiring properties that you don't know some of the properties you own due to how plenty they are is a very bad practice.

I don't agree with you about Aliko Dangote because regardless of the fact that he's rich, we all know he's a business man and almost all his assets are productive and that is the reason why he has ventured and diversified into doing a lot of things just to maintain his status and the money keeps coming from different angles so his own is okay as a wealthy man he is, unlike people that just build houses and own some properties scattered everywhere when those properties are unproductive.

[Zlantann]

                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

Anyone who has so much property and those not know where some of them are is either unwise, criminal, or mentally sick. It is simply to file all your properties and keep them in a safe place. You can also hire the services of asset managers to handle your properties. I said the person is a criminal because many corrupt politicians in my country might have properties they can't account for. This is because they steal billions and give the money to people to assist them in buying properties. So they might end up not knowing where they are located because they didn't work hard to secure them. Poor mental health could also affect the memory of people.

There is no need to acquire too many properties because you want to save for the future. It is not in the quantity but the quality. Having a few well-located properties can give you returns more than several properties. You don't buy properties without a comprehensive evaluation of the future value and profitability of the business. One can decide to buy farmland in a rural area for agribusiness, that's not a bad investment. You can also decide to buy or build a house in an urban area for rent. It all depends on proper planning.

[serjent05]

                     My question is that is it advisable to own too many properties that are unproductive with the expectations that they would stand as aids to us in the future or should we just own few assets and make sure they are of the best standards and are generating money for us regularly?

It does not hurt to get extra assets or properties especially when it is in a real estate.  Lands tends to appreciate overtime so many wealthy people acquire lands even if they end up in an abandoned state.  Just like in my place.  A once marsh area was once acquired by some wealthy person, and just let it be without doing any effort to improve it.  Over the span of time, this place got some illegal settlers and these people improve the environment by filling the marsh into a solid land.  At the end the owner claim the area which is now a hundred times higher than its initial acquisition value.

I am sure that these wealthy individuals who acquired properties and assets and did not bother to improve them have their main assets that generate more than enough for them.

There is no need to acquire too many properties because you want to save for the future. It is not in the quantity but the quality. Having a few well-located properties can give you returns more than several properties. You don't buy properties without a comprehensive evaluation of the future value and profitability of the business. One can decide to buy farmland in a rural area for agribusiness, that's not a bad investment. You can also decide to buy or build a house in an urban area for rent. It all depends on proper planning.

There are individual who are fond of accumulating assets that appreciate over time even without doing anything.  These are smart investors and making use of patience to reap higher reward in the future.  I do not think it is unwise to do such strategy.  As a matter of fact I see these people genius. 

I believe people never forget their assets and investments, it won't be abandoned or forgotten unless the person dies or is in a state where memory fails him.