acquiring many properties in the name of owning an asset

[kryptqnick]

If someone is very wealthy, they can afford to make risky investments and experiment. Yes, perhaps most of those assets will eventually fail, but there might also be one that performs so well that it's all worth it. Another aspect is, of course, diversification. No matter how reliable and stable a market or an asset seems, there is always a risk that some sort of event can cause it to crash. It is important to not put all eggs in one basket, so to speak.
I don't think it's a good idea to own too much property (if we're talking about real estate, cars, and stuff like that). Firstly, their liquidity isn't great. Secondly, it is bad for the environment. Thirdly, it seems unethical to obtain and own so many resources that others could truly benefit from. After all, we have one planet for everyone, and one person doesn't need 20 flats or cars.

[Taskford]

Maybe they are thinking about doing experimental investment towards those asset to see if it could give something long benefits to them especially that there's a chance for those properties to get its value appreciate.

But this is really a risky investment option to choose since we don't know if some of it will work, knowing that its hard to seek for immediate development of some places especially if their bough asset locates on remote area. And there are certain critical factors that affect its growth.

So for people thinking about doing this maybe they should go on more better options and acquire those assets which can give them assurance that can generate them a profit.

[legendbtc]

Maybe they are thinking about doing experimental investment towards those asset to see if it could give something long benefits to them especially that there's a chance for those properties to get its value appreciate.

But this is really a risky investment option to choose since we don't know if some of it will work, knowing that its hard to seek for immediate development of some places especially if their bough asset locates on remote area. And there are certain critical factors that affect its growth.

So for people thinking about doing this maybe they should go on more better options and acquire those assets which can give them assurance that can generate them a profit.

This will be a big risk for those who are not too wealthy, but will be a negligible risk and worth a try for those with too much money, and here we are talking about people who are able to own a lot of real estate, they are super rich people. And I think it seems inappropriate for us to judge or give advice to rich people about how to spend their money. They are businessmen, they probably own a lot of real estate, which means they are not stupid to not know what they are doing with their money. Furthermore, in business, the failure of 1 or 2 projects is not a big problem because as long as they succeed with the remaining projects, they will regain what they lost before and even earn more profitable.

[MArsland]

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.

There is another perception that rich people are targeted when they own building properties but instead leave them dilapidated and destroyed. They don't care about that because what they are targeting is investment with land ownership. If you know that as time goes by, it has a high price to sell. Moreover, the geographical location of the land is very ideal, accessible and reachable. I have often heard this talk from people who deliberately bought and let the building collapse because they were thinking about long-term investment. Not looking for short profits, just using the building.

[shield132]

                     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?

That's a very hard question to answer because that approach is very individual and exclusive. I prefer to mix both. I would invest some part of my money into unproductive assets that I think will become very productive soon. For example, imagine that there is an abandoned place and the city is expanding. You'll be able to buy the land on this abandoned place very cheaply and it won't bring profit for a long time but as the city grows, this abandoned place soon becomes surrounded by people and very soon becomes a part of the city. Then who knows, this place might become a very prestigious area. This type of investment can bring you tons of profit after 10 years, 20 years, 30 years.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

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

I don't know what goes through the mind of wealthy people for them to do what they do but I'll never know until I'm wealthy too one day and see what they see. From assumptions I'll say they're just flexing their wealth and showing off to their counterpart who is wealthy, just as we showoff between ourselves so do the wealthy too. I heard there are clubs only people that own yatch can attend and this will motivate any wealthy person that wants to attend to party or join the club to buy a yatch and same thing might be for a private jet or island club. Some of them are just trying to avoiding losing their money so they put it in landed property that they can always sell later for money. Others might just be wasteful spending as they didn't plan for their money or they just have too much to hold.

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?

My advice would be to go with fewer assets and not liability, there are properties that we'll own and they become a liability to us. Anything that takes money from us are liability and if a property keep taking money through maintenance other charges then they're a liability but if we own few properties and they're very productive then we're good. Personally I have always believed in productivity over quantity.

[lornadane]

Tbh, owning multiple properties is basically a way to diversify assets and hedge against inflation. Real estate can generate passive income, but it’s not liquid like BTC. Always consider taxes, maintenance, and local laws before going all-in.

[KiaKia]

Some people will think that they are having those properties for bragging sakes, but productive properties comes with the stress of monitoring here and there, the thing is you can't always be everywhere, if you have several properties you don't need to monitor them, they are yours and they can be where they are for years.

Running companies isn't a easy task and most rich people are already filled with unrest, they are always busy, someone who makes his wealth from sugar factory can go into cement factory business, but as more new ideas keeps coming you won't be able to monitor them all, they will become a burden for you.

While some will say you can just hire managers and get the job done this is not how to run a business, even managers need to be under your surveillance or else you will run down in losses in no time, everyone is different too, we can't all handle many businesses at the same time.

[M47AK16]

Some people will think that they are having those properties for bragging sakes, but productive properties comes with the stress of monitoring here and there, the thing is you can't always be everywhere, if you have several properties you don't need to monitor them, they are yours and they can be where they are for years.

Running companies isn't a easy task and most rich people are already filled with unrest, they are always busy, someone who makes his wealth from sugar factory can go into cement factory business, but as more new ideas keeps coming you won't be able to monitor them all, they will become a burden for you.

While some will say you can just hire managers and get the job done this is not how to run a business, even managers need to be under your surveillance or else you will run down in losses in no time, everyone is different too, we can't all handle many businesses at the same time.

Hiring property managers to take care of the property is never a bad idea. Yes, we need to monitor few things here and there but most of the work is done by the managers. All we need to do is audit a few statements and make sure the income remains stagnant. Hiring these managers will not only make our work easy but can also lead to development of our properties. We can offer incentivized plans to the managers so even they can increase their income but only if they develop the property and maximize the profits.

It is quite difficult to manage multiple properties specially if we have more than 10 properties. Just buying the property will not really work here. We also need to develop the property so we can rent it out to generate income. Buying and developing the property will be all on our side. Later part can be taken care of by the managers and all we need to do is audit the files every month to make sure there is no illicit behaviour from the manager's side.

[aysha9853]

Buying many properties doesnt seem like a smart or efficient way to invest, accumulating properties and especially unproductive ones only brings maintenance, legal issues and money sitting idle without generating more, its better to have fewer assets that actually produce income and are easy to manage.

[Uhwuchukwu53]

Many rich people are misguided as some are control by their weath which make them reason below expectations as what they think to be right direction will totally be wrong and many are so autocratic that they don't even listen to advise even when they needed adviser around them.
Op from my observation your point of the wealthy people with some unproductive investment is very bast in our society today, some  toe onto a line of investment or business because their colleagues are on it not because they have better idea on it, if you look around our society many are building hotels, some time which lifespan may depreciate or collapse before their old age, instead of factories capable of producing people's demand in the society.

It's wrong notion to acquire properties that can't generate reasonable income such as buying of land different area where some stand undeveloped and being handled by people who may even plot to sell it off without your knowledge or ternanment building which agent may mismanaged, the best is sticking to one or two factories which is capable of meetings certain society demand, though individual choice of investment differs but some carry out their investment as they are control by their wealth rather than critical analysis or business idea.

[gibrab16]

Land is a limited asset, and can be passed on without the risk of loss over the time. with multiple usecases.

[lornadane]

imo quality beats quantity here. owning 2–3 well-managed, income-producing properties is way better than having 10 that are half-abandoned. unproductive assets still cost money (tax, repairs, agents) and stress. if an asset isn’t generating cashflow or appreciating properly, it’s more like dead weight than wealth. fewer assets you actually understand and monitor is safer long term.

[Humblevirus]

The fact is that it is not easy to own a productive asset, because if the owner is not there to monitor his or her productive asset, it is very possible for it to collapse. And that is why many rich people may not have time for proper monitoring of their productive places. For this reason, people are very hard to trust.so, most of those who are acquiring properties like buildings and other properties that may not be generating anything for them may have their own reasons for doing that. In fact, as I view it, some of these properties are seen as assets because, in a short time, their prices always appreciate. Another reason is that some people are just acquiring properties because they do not have any productive business ideas.So, the point is that everyone cannot be the same, and that is a fact about life.

[Bitcoin Maxi]

It is a thing of choice for people because they are people that just love to acquire plenty properties and others will go for what is making profits for them now. But for me I will choose to acquire as much properties as far as they are assets. Some might be unproductive as at the time acquired but overtime it will appreciate. I can still remember when my father use to buy lands in places  we complain alot about but just within few years slot was recovered

[lixer]

Investing into properties has never been a bad idea but only if there is not high taxation or maintenance involved. Assets like properties can inflate over time which can make us earn good profits just by holding the property for a decent amount of time. I do not see this as a bad idea. Investing into properties at least in my country is considered as a secure form of investment and within a few years the price for the property will at least rise by 20% which I consider to be a decent amount of profit.

I too will prefer buying a lot of properties if I have a large stack of money piling around. These properties will not only give me profits over time but they can also act as an emergency fund which can be used in times of crisis.

[michellee]

It is not wise to own too many unproductive properties. We can't enjoy the passive so we need to turn unproductive assets into productive assets. We can rent our assets to others which can increase our income. We can reinvest in other productive ventures that can produce more money for us. That is a way to prepare our future when we can't work and don't earn money. We need to have as many assets so we don't have a problem if we retire. We have Bitcoin now and that is work for the future. While we can also search for real life investments to back up and become our additional assets.

[gibrab16]

This is a very thoughtful question. In my view, quality always beats quantity when it comes to assets. Owning many properties that are unproductive, poorly managed, or forgotten can easily turn from “wealth” into a liability—maintenance costs, legal risks, and even loss through fraud, as you mentioned.

Few well-chosen assets that are properly documented, managed, and consistently generating income provide real financial security and peace of mind. Assets should work *for* the owner, not create stress or confusion. Wealth is not about how many properties you own on paper, but how effectively those assets support you during your lifetime and protect your family afterward.

[YUriy1991]

It is not wise to own too many unproductive properties. We can't enjoy the passive so we need to turn unproductive assets into productive assets. We can rent our assets to others which can increase our income. We can reinvest in other productive ventures that can produce more money for us. That is a way to prepare our future when we can't work and don't earn money. We need to have as many assets so we don't have a problem if we retire. We have Bitcoin now and that is work for the future. While we can also search for real life investments to back up and become our additional assets.

In my opinion, it's best to buy assets that have economic value and provide future returns. If you own multiple properties, it's best to rent them out to maintain them and generate income. Buying assets that don't generate economic returns is wasteful. We'll just end up spending extra money on maintenance costs. I think buying multiple properties is fine; the most important thing is to manage them wisely. Don't just let them sit there after buying them and not use them for economic growth; that's wasteful. It's better to use that money to buy Bitcoin.

[reagansimms]

Their motivation for buying unproductive property may be because they want to boast or want to get recognition from others, but regardless of the reason, property that is left unused can still be categorized as an investment (if ownership does not change hands). Unproductive properties indirectly consume significant financial resources, including maintenance costs, taxes, and other expenses. Unproductive properties also fail to generate income that can help increase profits consistently, both monthly and annually.
In my opinion, having a few quality assets that generate income regularly is a more effective strategy than spending so much money on owning unproductive properties that can become a financial burden.