Topic: acquiring many properties in the name of owning an asset - page 4. (Read 588 times)

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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?