All Forum Posts by: Bryan Beal

@Tom Makinen this is off-base on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. 

To claim that small businesses would close on their own due to a decrease in customers is both irrational and shortsighted.  Sure, there may have been a decrease in the numbers of customers and SOME of these businesses may not have survived but many of the businesses that have been shut down and forced to close would have been able to stay afloat and weather the storm. 

And to insinuate that I "want people to die" is misleading and flat out false.  I've stated multiple times that any death is a terrible death but if you think people aren't dying because of these shutdowns for a myriad of reasons beyond this virus, you are, once again, off-base and incorrect.  

@Ryan S. - the entire argument for me falls apart when you compare it to speeding.  That is, in every sense of the phrase, against the law and yes, most certainly does put other people at risk.  Although, if you never drove your car or went outside, much like the scenario we're discussing here, you wouldn't be at risk from me driving - either legally or illegally.  Much like if YOU stay inside, you're protecting yourself.  If you don't see or talk to anyone else while this is going on, completely quarantine and shelter-in-place, you're not going to get this virus.  So you're still safe and, more importantly, well within your right to do that.  Just like it applies to the other side of this discussion.  

@Jake Zhang understood, my apologies for misinterpreting your question.  NYC has the most cases and the most deaths, by far, in the entire country.  I don't see how you can disagree with that but so be it.  

And, let's take a step back from the "No one would be around" comment.  Yes, people are dying and that's always terrible (I cannot stress that enough) but the VAST majority of people who do contract this, fully recover.  So while it's (still) terrible people are dying at the hands of this virus, this was NEVER going to be a situation where we all just go away and capitalism fails.  

@Jake Zhang again, you're in NYC - the epicenter of this virus.  Your perspective is valid but it's also skewed.  The majority of the country is not nearly at the same risk level as NYC.  You're entitled to your opinion and that's fine but you can't convince me that everyone's needs are the same and this affects everyone the same.  That's simply and factually not accurate.  

And if you're asking me if I'm OK with capitalism being the cost of keeping the economy closed, in this circumstance, that answer is a firm no.  1,000,000 times out of 1,000,000 no.  If you're willing to let capitalism be a casualty of these state shutdowns, you and I will never agree on much.  

@Ty Doke it seems to be a tale of two different times and a shift in perspective.  And, in fairness, I have not read this entire thread so I apologize if I'm repeating what others may have already said.  

Crazy to think that 6 short months the markets and mutual funds were on fire.  401Ks were skyrocketing and most of us felt good about our financial standing.  Then COVID-19 hits - and BOOM, markets tumble and our economic future looks a little (understatement) more uncertain.  6 months ago it's understandable to think that, with the market at its peak, diversifying in real estate was the prudent move - strike both sides while it's hot!  

When the market went down it created buying opportunity (you know, buy low & sell high) within the markets.  So, it's possible that, and I don't want to speak to anyone else's motives here, but it's possible if the mutual fund took a hit, pulling money out of the investment may not have been the prudent move like it would have been just 6 short months ago. 

Having said all of that, we're all here because we believe in the structure of building wealth through REI. NO ONE here thinks investing in real estate is "a terrible idea." Because it most certainly is not. Diversification is key when it comes to investment strategy. If you were going to take all of your funds out of that investment and take a loss on it, most would (and should) recommend against that. By contrast, if that's only a small portion of your investment portfolio and you're looking to diversify, then it still makes all the sense in the world. Personally, I dove head first into real estate and it's my main investment source. I've grown at a rather fast pace but I still have other investments and I've been able to spread my liabilities out among them all.

As long as cashflows, ARV and ROI are solid (which in this case they most certainly are), hard to argue, nay, impossible to argue that this is a "terrible idea." Go get it!

@Ray Smith first and foremost, we all appreciate the work you're doing on the frontlines to fight this.  No doubt that it's taken a toll on many and the work you're doing needs to be acknowledged. 

That said, NYC is, far and away, the epicenter of this disease in our country.  As a matter of perspective, you're seeing the worst of what this virus has to offer.  That is NOT the case in many other parts of the country.  As I've said what feels like a million times on this thread, this is not a one-size-fits-all.  Some parts of the country and hot spots for this virus (NY, NJ) while others have limited exposure to it.  The risk is not the same for all so it shouldn't all be treated the same for all. 

The initial push to get a handle on this is one thing but this has dragged out far too long.  Let's work together and find a middle ground where we protect those who need it and allow those to get back to their normal lives that don't.  Unfortunately, it seems everyone wants one extreme or the other - somewhere in the middle is usually in the best interest of the many.  

@Account Closed can help me explain it so you understand).  This is a very fluid situation but as I've said over and over again, the longer this drags out, the more likely it is that the cure becomes more problematic than the virus itself. 

And hey, I'll gladly let you overpay for one of my rentals ;).  

Haha @Brian Van Pelt you should learn how to interpret context.  Where to even begin...

How are those two statements not related?  I have the right to do those things, yes.  So do you.  So does everyone else.  Then again, it's your right to NOT do those things if you so choose, and that's fine.  Either way, we all have the right to do what we think is best.  EVERYONE has the right to pick and choose what they deem is right or wrong and that all falls within that same argument.  So no, you can't pick and choose who has certain rights and who don't.  We all have them.  Just because I exercise mine differently doesn't make it any less of a right.  

Normally, I'd ignore a dumb post like this but this time, I couldn't help myself.  

@Kirk R. you can deflect all you want but that doesn't at all answer the question I posed.  A right is a right is a right is a right and those are protected.  You don't have to like it but you have to respect it.  So sounds like you're also of the belief that those who peacefully protest should "die on the streets, alone?"  What Constitutional rights do you speak of here?  I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about letting people die in the streets...  Maybe I missed that one?

So, @JD Martin, let me understand this.  And I want to be perfectly clear and I would like you to be as well.  You think that someone who catches this diseases during a peaceful protest, which is specifically outlined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, your belief is that person should "die in the streets, alone?"  That's your stance on this?  That's your wish?  You can't talk about rights in a singular fashion.  They apply to everyone or they apply to no one.  You can't pick and choose who has certain rights and who doesn't.  This isn't an "I disagree with your stance so the rights don't apply to you."  That's both ignorant and dangerous.  I have to say that your logic here is astoundingly flawed and you need to take a firm look at how you interpret rights.