All Forum Posts by: Matthew McNeil

I've been patient and given my PM the benefit of the doubt.  Everything went good for several years when they managed a couple hundred properties.  Unfortunately, things are different now and I feel like another number in their tech App once they hit 500 doors under their management.  I'm ready to pivot to another PM.  It seems that PMs get to a place of critical mass where they're trying to manage too many properties, but they've lost the personal touch.  My fear is I'll pivot to another PM then discover a few years later that I'm in the same place.

 Well said!  

 A recast is a principal paydown that involves a re-amortization of the loan.  For example, if you recast a loan with a $30,000 pay-down it can lower your mortgage by $150 (est) which equates to an increase in CF.  

https://www.investopedia.com/t...

What @Joe Villeneuve is advising you is absolutely right. The only exception I've made is that part of my risk reduction is to lower my LTV which I do using a recast strategy, which in turns increases my CF. The intent is to lower my risk in the event of an economic slowdown and if we're faced with a 2008 redo. Highly unlikely and I may be too cautious, but I feel much more comfortable positioning my portfolio that way.

Yes, if my wife said "No."

I think the conception of FIRE has been attributed to Mr. Money Mustache :)

I agree with you @Mike Dymski and @Account Closed.  You wrote; “Most people in the FIRE movement don't retire early” and “Not to actually retire.”

Perhaps the FIRE acronym is a misnomer because the premise is to become Financially Independent so that you can “Retire Early” with the emphasis on Retiring.

I agree with the "freedom number" you used Anthony.  That succinctly identifies my concern about FIRE. That "number" doesn't remain constant and will either evolve or change completely as time moves forward.  The emphasis of FIRE is early - too early.  It works for some, but it can't be the framework for a movement where people are focused on retiring early.  It just isn't realistic. There are simply too many variables involved.  

I come from healthy DNA stock. My maternal and paternal grandparents lived until their mid-90s. If I embrace F.I.R.E. at my age then I’m probably looking at 40 years until I die.

Reality check bullet points;

1. F.I.R.E. presupposes that life is static.
2. F.I.R.E. is falsely based on calculations when in reality they’re projections. For example, how do you take into account future inflation or the cost of a significant illness?

Working is a value. Productivity is a value. Retire at 35. Then what?

I appreciate that it works for some people who are putting it out there in articles, blogs, YouTube videos, and even writing books. But the fractional number of people who have retired early does not justify a movement where people may be misguided to make enormous sacrifices to achieve a goal only to be faced with a significant problem 20 years later.

Granted, many BP members may balk at this post.  However, I think we can all agree that applying some of the FIRE philosophy resonates with people, but in truth its more about pivoting control back into our hands and retiring early may not be the avenue to pursue that control.