acquiring many properties in the name of owning an asset

[gibrab16]

Owing properties everywhere and investing to generate proceeds still sounds like the same thing to me because it's all for future purposes, if you have properties it is for your children and if you invest it is still for your children and besides that, most of these rich people that have properties still have businesses and investment too that generate profits for them and from I've seen so far I can tell that rich men understand that before they acquire properties they make sure to have investments that are bringing profits so I'm sure they know exactly what they are doing.

Property investment worth it for long term way how the return need ten or ninety years later waiting moment, good as retirement people won't try with the business have concept high profit and accept the  consequence high risk. Investment business in property is suitable for the people get more patience waiting the return but if some one lack patience and want their money progress increasing in short term not interested for investing in property.
The rich man usually find the business way will get return in short term and investing in property after having freeze money and not use any more for the other business. For me investing in property not really has challenge and prefer investing in cryptocurrency or stock get faster return although high risk.

I think you’re right on one key point — property is more about patience and capital preservation than fast growth. Real estate works well for people who already have money they can lock up for years without needing it elsewhere. That’s why most rich people build businesses or investments first, then park excess capital into property later.
Property returns are slow, but steady, and make sense for long-term security or retirement. If someone is looking for faster growth, then crypto or stocks obviously offer more upside, but with higher risk attached.
In the end it comes down to risk tolerance and time horizon. Property isn’t bad, it’s just not ideal if you’re chasing quicker progress or don’t have the patience to wait decades for returns.

[Agathamay]

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.

There's varieties of ideas to fly round and nobody would be able to stop another innovative.  We should embrace development and ne2 ideas because staying up is very important and achieving goals. There's nothing wrong with owning a property, we should keep close watch on our assets and knowing what will come next. Not everyone is acquainted with the prospects of investing and generating profits. It takes only a serious minded person to acquire numerous investments.

[Marvelockg]

                     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?

No intentional investor buys an asset that he sees would not be useful to him in the nearest future and the very concept of a rich investor going about buying asset to the point of not knowing some of them is not entirely true. Of cause in an ideal case, when an investor grows to a point where he has so many asset, he ensures he's responsible for some and if there's any possibility that he can't oversee all of them, the right thing he does is to give it out to someone else who's to be in charge of it.

There are people that have several cars in Thier garage as asset and while they might not be driving them again and it might seems like a liability, in the real sense, it's actually not a liability because in the future they can auction it out for a huge amount you never thought of.

[bubilas]

Sometimes, owning real estate isn't a good investment, but a costly burden. In the city where I was born, there are many ancient buildings that are essentially cultural landmarks, but they're being sold for next to nothing. The prices are indeed low, and anyone can afford them. But the catch is that this means government construction experts have determined that these buildings are no longer worth investing in and will likely be torn down.

This is a trap for investors who don't understand real estate appraisals.

[junder]

No intentional investor buys an asset that he sees would not be useful to him in the nearest future and the very concept of a rich investor going about buying asset to the point of not knowing some of them is not entirely true. Of cause in an ideal case, when an investor grows to a point where he has so many asset, he ensures he's responsible for some and if there's any possibility that he can't oversee all of them, the right thing he does is to give it out to someone else who's to be in charge of it.

There are people that have several cars in Thier garage as asset and while they might not be driving them again and it might seems like a liability, in the real sense, it's actually not a liability because in the future they can auction it out for a huge amount you never thought of.

What I'm getting at here is that handing it over to someone else means transferring hands or something like that, but what I'm thinking of is selling it or giving it to someone who can be trusted and he will take care of it and then the profits will be shared according to the agreement made.

If I still want to keep it but can't do it then I will give it to someone else, but if the situation is different then selling it is the option to choose. And with what you explained in the second paragraph is correct, easy to understand, that's good.

[Youngrebel]

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?

In as much as acquiring properties is good, it is best to acquire what will be useful to you  as you have rightly said. Some people donot know and have anything to do.with future investments which is why you see someone doing very well at a point and the next thing is they are down to the ground level left with nothing to fall back at. It is always important that you look for some investments to make when you are doing well so that if anything happens you can rely back to them in such times of need.

[Fiasem20]

I don’t really get baffled by people acquiring more unproductive properties,but that’s what I can’t do.I rather acquire what would be productive to me and my offspring in the future.Most people are acquiring properties because they want to pass it to their children when they pass away,just like my grandfather,he achieved a lot of properties,though I wouldn’t classify them to be unproductive because he’s grandchildren including me,we are all benefiting from it,he built houses and owned a lot of land.So in summary,acquiring a lot of properties isn’t a bad thing to do but the question is;would they be productive in the future.

[alastantiger]

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?

I would say it is far wiser to focus on owning a few high-quality, productive assets rather than spreading yourself too thin with numerous properties, many of which may end up neglected or mismanaged. Having too many properties can become a liability actually, there is maintenance and taxes, legal risks and even the possibility of others taking advantage of your lack of oversight, as you mentioned. But then again a smaller portfolio of well-chosen, income-generating assets  can provide steady returns which can be used to ease management and long-term security which in turn allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labor and leave something meaningful for your family

[Iroh]

Obviously yes but sometimes, people take or have the wrong perception/directives about owning assets.An asset is not defined by what it is, but by what it does.Owning a property becomes a strategy only when you’re clear about why you’re holding each one.If it doesn’t produce income, it must produce optionality, security, or leverage.Owning many properties is meaningless if none strengthen your cash flow or options for you in the long run.

Why would one own some properties which Includes houses and have it sit idle when it can be makin money for you at the moment and in the foreseeable future as well. I agree with your point; if your properties doesn't provide for you any benefits, then it's not really an asset but more of a liability on your hands.
If you're wealthy and purchases a property for whatever reason and let it sit idle, you earn/gain nothing and could end up spending more money to maintain the property while it remains dormant. Like you noted, owning a property becomes a plan when you're clear on its use.

[Oluwa-btc]

The decision comes from a place of personal preference.Owning multiple properties is a smart  step and progress towards wealth building, especially when the properties are regarded as high income generating asset.Only few individuals would invest in properties and deliberately restrict it from becoming profitable and productive.

[batang_bitcoin]

The decision comes from a place of personal preference.Owning multiple properties is a smart  step and progress towards wealth building, especially when the properties are regarded as high income generating asset.Only few individuals would invest in properties and deliberately restrict it from becoming profitable and productive.

It is smart and profitable if you own multiple properties but, you hire someone to maintain that for you. Because if you're the one who's going to maintain all of it, it will consume your time and it won't be productive if you have other things to do. Leveraging on the time of other people that shall take care of your properties and manage them, that's going to make you a lot of things other than doing it. It's profitable but, I can't imagine how much debt you'll be in it. It's easy to say that you can leverage all of the properties and have them as a collateral to expand your rental property business but for me, that's gonna make me hard to sleep at night thinking of the cash flow and monthly payments if majority of those properties came from borrowed money.

[Woodie]

 A little off topic, when it comes to owning property when does the property get to be called an asset and when does it become a liability because we all know for a fact that sometimes these properties can be a headache asking for every dollar you have to keep them running especially when you occupy the house and requiring maintenance & all other financial obligations..

Otherwise owning many properties should give you that financial freedom naturally and without to worry about how to takecare of yourself when you get older.

[Btcdeybodi]

A little off topic, when it comes to owning property when does the property get to be called an asset and when does it become a liability because we all know for a fact that sometimes these properties can be a headache asking for every dollar you have to keep them running especially when you occupy the house and requiring maintenance & all other financial obligations..

Otherwise owning many properties should give you that financial freedom naturally and without to worry about how to takecare of yourself when you get older.

I don't think there's any off topic in what you said here, your question is valid because there are those who acquire property as an asset but in the long run it becomes a liability in the sense that it may start losing it's value or the cost of maintaining them might become so high such that they might be abandoned in dilapidated state. It depends on the kind of properties anyways because for landed properties, i don't think they are liabilities except they lack maintenance, you can never sell them same price you bought or used to build them. The thing is just that people should not own properties they cannot maintain in the long term if not they will lose their value and becomes liability in disguise of an asset.

[jaberwock]

I like having a home, so if you want to own just one, for yourself, I can understand that. In return, I can also understand something like having for example 5 houses or so, so you rent it out, and you can do fine, even 10 could make sense. But that's about it, that's the maximum I can understand as investment.

Because that would be enough for you to live on, even if a few of them breaks down, floods, burns whatever, you still can go on making money enough to live. Rest should go to smarter and riskier investments that could make more money, because houses are not the best investments, they are safe, but not smart. You could make SO MUCH more money than buying a house, maybe you do not want take that risk, so 5-10 houses is fine, but after that, all those people who own 100+ houses, makes zero sense to me.

[Crypto_Timothy]

                     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?

The thing is that alot of those assests were acquired in certain ways and some were passed on from many generation before and now 1 or 2 person are inheriting everything so they can not know all their assests or some dont even care to know becuase money is always available. If you worked for the money you used for investements or owning an assets you would expect it to work for you and if it isnt you will try to make it work but as many of these assets were bought with illegal money, you wouldnt really care if anything is coming out of that assests.

[mvdheuvel1983]

The decision comes from a place of personal preference.Owning multiple properties is a smart  step and progress towards wealth building, especially when the properties are regarded as high income generating asset.Only few individuals would invest in properties and deliberately restrict it from becoming profitable and productive.

Owning properties of different kind is a smart way of building generational wealth if the properties are not the type that would lose values within a short period of time and for the profit making, it is necessary that an individual invest in a profit giving business so nobody will like to restrict his properties from making profit unless such person's intentions towards the properties are different from what we know otherwise nobody would stop his properties from becoming productive and bring more profit.

For an individual to make up his mind to invest in any property no matter the number the decision has already been made and the profit generation should have been considered, an asset generates profit otherwise it's nothing but a liability.

[Yeesha]

The decision comes from a place of personal preference.Owning multiple properties is a smart  step and progress towards wealth building, especially when the properties are regarded as high income generating asset.Only few individuals would invest in properties and deliberately restrict it from becoming profitable and productive.

It is not just about owning an assets, what matter most is how productive and fruitful those assets are. You just can't invest in a lot of things in the name of owning an assets, they are differences between owning an assets and owning a productive asset. You don't have to waste your energy on something that will drain you. As you are preparing for your future only include things that will be beneficial to you and not things that will make you bankrupt or feel devastated. Life is too short for people to understand your point or struggles, you just have to focus on what you know it's  suitable for you.

Don't follow other people's opinions, just do what you think it right for you. People only how to give advice, but when things turn out wrongly for you, no one will be willing to support you financially. As they "a stone in the hand, is better than thousands in the bush". Just invest in asset that will yield positive results, but if you think you are capable of investing in many assets, then it is fine, but you have to choose something tangible and productive.

[Bitcoin.com97]

It all depends on individual and what they want , some persons like acquiring properties even if they don’t want to use it at that moment, while some just want to acquire with the hope that one day what they will use it for will definitely come , some buys in case they need emergency money they could sell it off , and most property comes in a cheaper rate and they sees it as an opportunity to achieve it for future purposes and don’t expect all to be established, it is actually an asset too , those property  may not be useful at the moment but could be in the future, what works for mr A may not work for me B ,  to me I feel owning properties is a way of securing a better future , owning a property is profitable but most persons may wish for other things instead of properties that is why I said earlier that it depends on individual and their preferences.

[Roseline492]

I don't think there's any off topic in what you said here, your question is valid because there are those who acquire property as an asset but in the long run it becomes a liability in the sense that it may start losing it's value or the cost of maintaining them might become so high such that they might be abandoned in dilapidated state. It depends on the kind of properties anyways because for landed properties, i don't think they are liabilities except they lack maintenance, you can never sell them same price you bought or used to build them. The thing is just that people should not own properties they cannot maintain in the long term if not they will lose their value and becomes liability in disguise of an asset.

You are right maintenance is something that gives worth to a property when time comes for reselling, we could use building for instance, if is left without maintenance, all the facilities will start getting bad and it would make the building becomes a non standard, but when a person makes sure they have a maintenance team for all the properties they have you wouldn't deferentiate other newly built with the one you have built for years, although is actually not all the landed properties that maintenance should be carried on because there is nothing a person would do in a plot of land they have not started building on except they only cut the grasses from growing on the land.