Professional · Anaheim, CA · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 686 votes
In order to succeed..............someone or others must fail? Agree or disagree?
This is a general question, which pertains to pretty much anything, including real estate. In real estate, there are many properties, but only a handful are really good deals. Thus, one needs to compete in knowledge, price, and competency to obtain this piece of real estate. A matter of supply and demand, in which there is only one winner for a single piece of property. All others who do not have the means, money, finance, or knowledge to become the winning bidder, are the losers.
This is the truth that most do not want to acknowledge or accept. There is only one Super Bowl, World Series, or NBA winner in a given year.
So in reality, if Bigger Pockets is helping everyone on this website with sharing knowledge and experience, then doesn't everyone win? Not really, 90% of the people on Bigger Pockets never take action.
My belief has always been that There are no limits when it comes to success. Keeping that in mind, suggesting that someone must fail in order for another to succeed would be like placing an artificial limit on success.
That sort of limiting belief is common amongst quitters, which is why I refuse to believe it.
Does someone have to fail for others to succeed ???? Not necessarily but it certainly makes succeeding easier.
All of life is about winning and losing. Business is certainly no different.
Not closing one deal is not a game loser just one play in a bigger game. You only lose if you quit the game....just like life.
You also can not lose if you don't play the game. Most simply choose to not play. The real losers are those that play and fail, ultimately to be taken advantage of by successful business vultures. The true winners in life.
The failure of others does make succeeding easier. Vultures may not be cuddly but we are necessary to keep the world a cleaner place.
You use terminology game and life as synonymous. " You also cannot lose if you don't play the game. "
But isn't the game to make enough money to live comfortable during our life to have a comfortable retirement? Thus, if not making money or not choosing to play the game, then we are not saving for retirement?
My belief has always been that There are no limits when it comes to success. Keeping that in mind, suggesting that someone must fail in order for another to succeed would be like placing an artificial limit on success.
That sort of limiting belief is common amongst quitters, which is why I refuse to believe it.
When I made the statement, the only saving grace is that there is no count of how many failures one can have, but only takes one to succeed...................I was thinking of Thomas Edison.
There are many ways to define success, and not everyone is going to agree. However, there is one universal word that everyone knows and wants..........MONEY. That is the universal word that everyone understands. So when I change the word from SUCCEED to MONEY, then not everyone will make money, some more than others, and others not at all.
This post is about real estate, and why do we buy and sell real estate...............for the money.
Professional · Anaheim, CA · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 686 votes
8y
If you buy real estate to live in, raise kids, and shelter, it is still money because it takes money to purchase. The bottom line is no matter how you look at it, it comes down to money. No one likes talking about it, but that is the truth of the matter.
Success is money. Money is success. The two go hand in hand.
Investor · Pacific City, OR · Member since 2016 · 175 posts · 123 votes
8y
@Terry Lao I disagree.
People can succeed without others “failing”.
I can purchase a house from someone that is tired of owning it. They make some money and get rid of the headache. I purchase the property, fix it up and sell/rent/live in it.
It’s a win/win for both of us. I succeeded because I bought a property and added value to it to improve the value.
The seller succeeded by getting rid of a headache.
It's okay to disagree. Let me play devil's advocate to your example. You are assuming that you are the only buyer. If this was on the MLS, then there could be several offers. It really depends on the market. If it was San Jose/SF market, a broken down beater home will still sell for millions. The below link is to modest home sells for $2.8M, and multiple offers. Those bidders that did not win are the losers, that enabled you to be the winner.
Overall, it does not matter if the example is real estate, or NFL, NBA, or MLB, there is competition, and there are winners and losers. Money just helps everyone keep score.
Professional · Anaheim, CA · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 686 votes
8y
Here is the best example of all...........Darwinism. The survival of the fittest. All animals behave under this theory. Lions, tigers, elephants, fish, etc.........including man. I think sometimes man forget they are animals too because they are arrogant thinking they are smart and above all animals. Dinosaurs survived over 200 millions years. Modern man survived maybe 50k years, give or take.
In game theory there is the concept of a zero sum game in which you can only win if someone else loses, for example poker. Actually poker is slightly negative sum since you have to pay the dealer a chip now and then. Real estate is not a zero sum game since prices mostly go up and there is cash flow and tax advantages even if prices don't go up. Renters generally lose financially over the long term but gain flexibility and also the ability to live somewhere they might not be able to buy. Anyone who doesn't play the game may be losing a huge opportunity.
Investor · Saint Charles, MO · Member since 2016 · 118 posts · 91 votes
8y
No, others must also be succeeding otherwise real estate investors would have no renters to rent to, no purchasers for their flips, no banks to lend money, or contractors to do the work.
Real estate, like all free markets, is not a zero sum game.
Guy with Great Hair · Austin, TX · Member since 2013 · 2k+ posts · 4k+ votes
8y
this assumes a zero-sum game, which is a common misconception of how economics works.
Our economy is not a closed system, and value can be created out of thin air, this is non-zero-sum. We can all win.
in closed systems such as a market with a limited and static inventory, then yes it would be zero-sum. Luckily, this is not the case.
As for your larger point, success is hard to define, and quite relative. You say most people on BP won't ever take action which I agree with, but real estate is just one small part of economics. Plenty of industries are available that are MORE lucrative than real estate, not like we have a monopoly on profit, it's just the one we all happen to like.
If you're living in America (or any big modern country) your quality of life is most likely the highest of all human existence before you; this is proof of non-zero sum.
And what you perceive as someone losing, might be someone winning. An old home in need of a rehab at a discounted rate to you is a major win. But to the seller, it might be a burden on their finances, their lives, or a memory they no longer wish to have. Unloading it for them is the success, even its modest or nil on the financial side.
We all have our wants and desires and they are not (and should not) all be linked to JUST financial. Some of us see having financial success as freedom, and in some cases, that's true. But to me having financial success as "freedom" isn't actually free; it's going to take investment, some level of failure (I'm sure), patience from my family, patience from me, and trading one "job" for another, where eventually (hopefully) I can quit my day job and run my investment business full time. But I'll still be working.
Its an interesting thought you put up, and if the ONLY game was real estate to make money, and it was a zero-sum game, then yes, you'd be right. But the theory doesn't make it out of a textbook.
Nice hearing from you and your opinion. Las Vegas had a few flat months in June and July as to median home price, but overall SFR median price stands at 290k, not bad.
Your statement about America is another example of my point, if America succeeds then some other country loses. The measurement of economic output is GDP ( Gross Domestic Product), and United States is #1. Maybe not in percentage but certainly in dollars. Thus, America is the winner, while smaller countries like on below list, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Naurau, ect. Also, in this example with countries, the United States takes the majority of the world's resources like oil.
I basically tried to narrow the area to real estate. Where you have one winner bidder, and like in Las Vegas many losing bidders. Also, it depends on how long and when you hold onto the property. Although, you could be the winner and out bid your rivals, you could ultimately be the loser like in 2008.
Let's take your example, old home in need of rehab. The seller is selling due to the reason's you mentioned. However, you are assuming there is only one buyer. If this property was in Las Vegas and on the MLS, I assure you there will be multiple offers. Thus, there would only be one winning bidder and lots of losing bidders. This reinforces my statement.
Philadelphia, PA · Member since 2017 · 824 posts · 1k+ votes
8y
@Terry Lao, I hate to say it, but your view on things is extremely binary.
Take your original post..."So in reality, if Bigger Pockets is helping everyone on this website with sharing knowledge and experience, then doesn't everyone win? Not really, 90% of the people on Bigger Pockets never take action."
I view knowledge and experience as success. The more knowledge and experience you have, the better. Lets say you are a "losing" bid on a single property. Losing on that property may not be the end of the world, because it gave you insight into the process, and perhaps your next property is a win. Or, what if the person who wins the bid comes to find out the foundation on that property needs a complete overhaul. Are they now a "loser" because of this?
Your view is so binary that all you're doing is applying a macro result into a singular micro scenario, but then saying that micro scenario applies to everything. But it doesn't take into account the intangible things you don't see on paper, like time, livelihood, knowledge, experience, etc.
Real Estate Broker · Houston, TX · Member since 2015 · 18 posts · 14 votes
8y
@Terry Lao
If two parties have their eyes on the exact same prize and only one prize is available then yes one party’s success came by way of the other party’s failure.
But in many situations the help one provides may be the key to the other party accomplishing their objective. For example if a real estate investor can provide a quick funding all cash close for someone else who needs to sell a property fast, then don’t both parties win by each accomplishing their primary objective?
Your correct if there is only one buyer and one seller. Then it is a win - win. This is the exception to my statement, rather than the norm, as most know that on any given property on the MLS in a hot market like San Jose, Seattle, or Las Vegas, there are multiple offers.
Rental Property Investor · Ankeny, IA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
8y
The more I read the OP's responses, the more I disagree with him. First, anybody's idea of "success" may be different than my idea of success. One's idea of how much money it takes to succeed is not my idea. Unlike sports, real estate does not have the one prize that all must seek to acquire. Yes, I'm in real estate to make money. But, I am not in real estate to make all the money. You can outbid me and "win" a property, that merely means I move on to another property out there. We can literally all be successful, whatever that means to you. We are not all even playing the same "game".
90% of the people on Bigger Pockets never take action..........is not from me, it is a statement from Brandon of Bigger Pockets. I don't have problem sharing information or experience. In fact, I have a lot of posts and votes. The reason I don't is because i'm not binary or have such a narrow view. I believe the more you share the more successful you become......it's called networking. However, I also believe the competition is fierce in certain real estate markets like San Jose, Seattle, and Las Vegas.
Yes, it can happen if you win a bid, then turns out you need a complete overhaul. If you do your analysis correct , more often than not, you will come out successful.
You seem to choose a narrative the best fits your opinion, or look for the best in people. Perhaps, it is the silver lining you choose to see rather than the reality. I don't have to go too far into history that tells me this is not true.
Everyone has their definition of success. I choose "money" as a way to be sure everyone has a common definition. If you have a better definition, let's hear it.
Here is how I know your opinion is the exception rather than the norm.
1. Would you work as a realtor if there was no money to be gained?
2. Would anyone go to their jobs, Monday-Friday, 40 hours a week, if not to earn money?
90% of the people on Bigger Pockets never take action..........is not from me, it is a statement from Brandon of Bigger Pockets. I don't have problem sharing information or experience. In fact, I have a lot of posts and votes. The reason I don't is because i'm not binary or have such a narrow view. I believe the more you share the more successful you become......it's called networking. However, I also believe the competition is fierce in certain real estate markets like San Jose, Seattle, and Las Vegas.
Yes, it can happen if you win a bid, then turns out you need a complete overhaul. If you do your analysis correct , more often than not, you will come out successful.
You seem to choose a narrative the best fits your opinion, or look for the best in people. Perhaps, it is the silver lining you choose to see rather than the reality. I don't have to go too far into history that tells me this is not true.
Terry
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You are saying that every person who doesn't win, loses. That's simply not true. It's not about silver lining, or anything like that. And it is a binary view because you've taken zero consideration to other factors other than "winning" or "losing", which you've also poorly defined.
If you're going to put a philosophical post like this up, expect to be educated and for folks to disagree with you.
"90% of people never take action." While I'd love to know if that statistic is made up (I could actually see it be higher than 90%, frankly), does that mean those 90% have lost? Heck no. Maybe to you they lost, but ask them if they lost because they didn't get involved with real estate...I bet most don't see that as a loss.
You mention the fierce competition in certain markets, like a Vegas or Bay Area, and use that to justify that for every one person who closes on a deal, the other nine who missed out have lost. I'm simply telling you, that isn't true. Much to your original point -- information, networking, experience -- all are gained in that situation. Perhaps a savvy investor sees the idiots who get involved at the prime market all gain zero appreciation in the long run, and end up under-water, and then invest in emerging markets out-of-state to some degree of success. Who's the real winner in 5 years?
"You seem to choose a narrative the best fits your opinion, or look for the best in people. Perhaps, it is the silver lining you choose to see rather than the reality. I don't have to go too far into history that tells me this is not true." I could say the exact same about you, no? You are assigning winners and losers to life scenarios that don't necessarily produce that result, to prove a point about people winning and losing. :)