NEVER sell any RE in your Life, and Get Rich!?!

[J. Martin]

I've had so many people tell me, "If only I wouldn't have sold that home, I'd be retired.." etc.. So many, over so long, who wish they wouldn't have sold that property when they moved to a new primary residence, or wish they wouldn't have sold when they could have maneuvered to make that next acquisition..

I can picture holding the properties I am purchasing until the day I die, as they are providing me passive income for the longer-term. I'm also a big believer in leveraged appreciation in my area, and would rather have a larger price exposure to the market, than less. So I plan to hold everything I have for any foreseeable future.. Anyone else out there feel the same way? Or am I crazy to think this? Never say never, but I'd really like to keep accumulating, rather than sell to "trade up," or otherwise..

[Don Konipol]

@J. Martin Broad stroke statements like that may be true in a majority of cases, but there are always many exceptions. As pointed out in other posts in this thread, there are neighborhoods that have been devastated by blight where 20 years later houses are worth a fraction of what they once where. Same for many very small towns that lack beauty and charm, or something else such as mining or oil.

Sometimes the blight is a portion of a city. A house purchased in the South Bronx in New York in 1960 would have taken 45 years to regain it's full value (in real terms). During this period taxes, insurance, upkeep, etc. would have far exceeded any rental income collected. If the property owner renting the property failed to meet minimum standards as set forth by the NYC rental board he could be fined and or imprisoned!

Yet at the same time in North Brooklyn, a townhouse purchased in Park Slope for $8000 would have steadily risen in value to be worth $2-3 million today, rented for very positive cash flow on a continual basis, and income from such would have been more than sufficient for upkeep, improvement and cash to owner. Same city, two vastly different scenarios.

After the fact it all seems so obvious. But at the time many news articles where stating all the reasons the former would remain a solid investment and the latter would continue to deteriorate. Meanwhile the governments, both Federal and local, poured hundreds of millions into the South Bronx to ignite a recovery that never came, while writing off Park Slope as hopeless!

Buy and never sell IMO is a strategy that of course can work well under the right circumstances, however if you believe you can add value by studying real estate trends, getting a "feel" for a neighborhood, and learning the forces that drive value, why would you settle for the "stay and pray" method of investing?

BTW, many of the successful buy and hold strategies are based on investments in suburban housing, which has a much more consistent record of steadily increasing values than either urban or country properties. Much larger value increases, as well as much larger value declines are found in city neighborhoods. But this is all the record of the past - whose to say what the future will hold?