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.