All Forum Categories
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback
All Forum Posts by: Joe Villeneuve
Joe Villeneuve has started 0 posts and replied 12919 times.
Post: Paid off Rental Property!
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
Assuming when you say "$3900/mo in rental income" you mean cash flow.
That means it will take you about 13 years of rental income to equal the $500k in equity you have now. I know you don't want to deal with tenants and their problems, so why not either:
A - Buy a NNN property where you don't have those problems, but still have cash flow,...or
B - Take your $500k, and partner up with another investor where they deal with the tenants.
Post: Why getting into real estate primarily for cash flow is wrong - and even dangerous
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
Quote from @Joe S.:
Quote from @Joe Villeneuve:
Quote from @Joe S.:
Quote from @Joe Villeneuve:
Refinancing isn't pulling out cash free. Also, you're only accessing part of the equity,...and, since the principal on the new loan will be higher with the refi, your mortgage payment will also be higher, so your CF will go down.
Refinancing isn't the same thing as selling. Refinancing is only a linear return, selling is an exponential return. I'm looking at a spread sheet I use to show this to my students, and the difference over time is quick, is rather large.
Joe, Is it possible to share your spreadsheet??
Like I said on a post before. On occasion with refinances I have had properties appraise for way more than I could’ve sold them for on the open market. . So in a case like that, I feel that I did better on the refinance. Of course I have had properties that I was trying to refinance before that appraised for considerably lower than I was hoping for so on those I did not refinance them.
I for one have had less than stellar results trying to force a property to sell for cash on the open market at top dollar. Maybe I just didn’t time it right like a PRO such as yourself has done. :-)
Maybe, I'm in the middle of redoing/adding to it. I'm always doing this...LOL. It would be a problem if I made it available now, with parts leading to nowhere, and without detailed explanations of how it works and why. It would also be a disservice to my students if I just handed it out.
It's not that hard to do one, a simple one, that would serve this purpose. Mine have a tendency to be rather involved going beyond the original reason for doing it.
Post: Why getting into real estate primarily for cash flow is wrong - and even dangerous
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
Quote from @Joe S.:
Quote from @Joe Villeneuve:
Refinancing isn't pulling out cash free. Also, you're only accessing part of the equity,...and, since the principal on the new loan will be higher with the refi, your mortgage payment will also be higher, so your CF will go down.
Refinancing isn't the same thing as selling. Refinancing is only a linear return, selling is an exponential return. I'm looking at a spread sheet I use to show this to my students, and the difference over time is quick, is rather large.
Joe, Is it possible to share your spreadsheet??
Like I said on a post before. On occasion with refinances I have had properties appraise for way more than I could’ve sold them for on the open market. . So in a case like that, I feel that I did better on the refinance. Of course I have had properties that I was trying to refinance before that appraised for considerably lower than I was hoping for so on those I did not refinance them.
I for one have had less than stellar results trying to force a property to sell for cash on the open market at top dollar. Maybe I just didn’t time it right like a PRO such as yourself has done. :-)
Maybe, I'm in the middle of redoing/adding to it. I'm always doing this...LOL. It would be a problem if I made it available now, with parts leading to nowhere, and without detailed explanations of how it works and why. It would also be a disservice to my students if I just handed it out.
It's not that hard to do one, a simple one, that would serve this purpose. Mine have a tendency to be rather involved going beyond the original reason for doing it.
Post: Why getting into real estate primarily for cash flow is wrong - and even dangerous
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
Refinancing isn't pulling out cash free. Also, you're only accessing part of the equity,...and, since the principal on the new loan will be higher with the refi, your mortgage payment will also be higher, so your CF will go down.
Refinancing isn't the same thing as selling. Refinancing is only a linear return, selling is an exponential return. I'm looking at a spread sheet I use to show this to my students, and the difference over time is quick, is rather large.
Post: how to scale faster
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
You have to be willing to sell your properties and access the equity to buy up. It's the fastest, and most efficient way of doing what you asked.
Post: Why getting into real estate primarily for cash flow is wrong - and even dangerous
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
Quote from @Nick H.:
Quote from @Joe Villeneuve:
You will notice I said I require CF as well. When the accumulate CF equals the DP, meaning you have no more cash in, you can't lose with leverage. The continued CF keeps paying the mortgage, and paying down the principal. As the PV goes up (it goes up exactly the same for a leveraged deal or if you paid all cash), you gain your real profits.
When you pay all cash, you are in the hole until you recover it all back from cash flow. this means, if you pay all cash, you have 5 times as much cash to recover. Leverage wins again.
Yes, if you have continued cash flow, you can't lose, sure. The baked in assumption to "continued cash flow" is that you stay profitable. Are you saying it is impossible that next year a property that profits today won't profit?
i.e. buy house for $400k, leverage 300k, dp 100k, cash flow is however many hundreds of dollars per mo after mortgage pmt. It is not impossible to go negative cash flow (between rents going down and vacancy going up) and for your house value to go down.
First, I wouldn't do a 25% DP.
Second, in this seems to the one (and a very important one) item you keep glossing over, don't understand, or are ignoring. An all cash deal has 5 time as much cash (DP) to recover than one with a 20% DP.
Third, and this also is a biggy, I'm not buying any properties where the property can't cover temporary vacancies.
Post: Why getting into real estate primarily for cash flow is wrong - and even dangerous
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
Quote from @Nick H.:
@Joe Villeneuve to boil down your commentary, it sounds like the bulk of what you are saying is "the more leverage the better". Obviously this is nearly always true with an appreciating asset/appreciating rents (depending on the cap rate, interest rate, and time horizon, which @Scott Trench was alluding to).
As someone who owns quite a bit of real estate and uses leverage, I don't disagree that leverage is good. But to be clear, Leverage does not ALWAYS win (like 2008 Detroit max leverage, you probably lose out). "Leverage always wins" or whatever your claim is, is simply not true. "Leverage always wins" under your most likely forecasted scenario - sure that might be true, but that's a big caveat.
So yes, of course max leverage is great when rents go up. But if you hold max leverage for 40 years, I wouldn't be shocked if at some point you go broke. Therefore holding less than max leverage isn't unreasonable. Black swan events can happen.
Post: Why getting into real estate primarily for cash flow is wrong - and even dangerous
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
You will notice I said I require CF as well. When the accumulate CF equals the DP, meaning you have no more cash in, you can't lose with leverage. The continued CF keeps paying the mortgage, and paying down the principal. As the PV goes up (it goes up exactly the same for a leveraged deal or if you paid all cash), you gain your real profits.
When you pay all cash, you are in the hole until you recover it all back from cash flow. this means, if you pay all cash, you have 5 times as much cash to recover. Leverage wins again.
Post: Why getting into real estate primarily for cash flow is wrong - and even dangerous
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Joe Villeneuve:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:
Quote from @Ethan Brackin:
Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:
Quote from @Ethan Brackin:
Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:
Quote from @Ethan Brackin:
Quote from @Paul Novak:
Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:
Quote from @Paul Novak:
Marcus I think this was a great post. I have not subscribed to the stance of trying to get into a property with as little down as possible just to generate cashflow. I have actually taking the unpopular stance of the exact opposite. I have tried to focus on properties that are in good locations where I can attract good tenants and then adjusted what I put down to hit my cashflow goals. Not adjusting for vacancy and maintenance my cashflow goal on a property is $500 per month at a minimum. We have put down 20 - 40% on some properties to achieve this goal. Like you said we have been saving upwards of 60% of our W2 income and business cashflow in order to do this.
Hi Paul! I think I am just south of you? Unpopular maybe, but for sure realistic and prudent. Buying quality assets that are in a desirable location and in good condition with a modest amount of leverage is IMO the only approach that I feel comfortable recommending. I have tried pretty much anything personally and I have seen so many investors start and either succeed or fail - well, let's call it abort and sell to never touch RE again.
And then I get calls from OOS investors who want to buy a 120k duplex in Milwaukee and when I try to tell them what will happen they go: uhm, I don't think we are a good fit. (Which is true, because I do mostly luxury residential, just trying to help)
Marcus, you are just south. I invest in the Sheboygan area. I agree with your assessments. So much content I see about ways to put as little money down as possible or doing the BRRR method so you can purchase a property and then pull out all the equity so after it's rehabbed you can get all your capital back out. I am not trying to knock those approaches and obviously they have worked great for many people but I feel the market is different then it was in the past. Personally I am not finding deals that could support those strategies in my market today based on my current skills and available time. If I took that approach I would have negative cashflow which isn't a good sustainable business model. I am okay with limited cashflow while I'm in my prime W2 working years but not negative. My business still needs to sustain itself. In my opinion that leaves me with two options. Sit back and wait for the market conditions to flip to where those strategies would work for me, or adapt to the current market. Sitting on the sidelines for me isn't an option. Knowing I'll be holding onto these properties for the next 30 years plus I have no issues with my strategy. I also am not looking for cheep properties in bad locations that could turn a quick buck. I want properties that I am proud to own and if I was personally looking for a rental I would be willing to rent. Obviously that isn't a requirement for most to buy a property but it's something that's important to me. Because I purchase properties like that I feel we attract tenants that we can relate to which helps us on the property management side with communication and working through issues.
Why do you believe there is a higher likelihood of negative cash flow with BRRRR? Is it because the loan you assume after a cash-out refinance is more likely to be higher than your gross cash flow?
Hi Ethan, I have been BRRRR-ing in Milwaukee for over a decade and after 2016-2018 or so I had to work increasingly harder to make deals work (much more complex rehabs: mold, foundation issues etc). Today our inventory is so low, that sellers don't have to give me 50% discount because of poor condition. They will find a first time home buyer that will be happy to pay close to what the neighbor's house (in great condition) is worth. If you can find one where you get the price to match the work needed, it is still one of the best strategies! But that's a big IF in 2025.
The approach that I take now is to let market appreciation and inflation do the heavy lifting for me. We have seen prices go up 8.2% in 2024 here and why would I work hard for half a year to do not that much better, if I can just do nothing instead?
Money, time and energy are interchangeable in real estate. If you don't have much money, but you do have time and energy, you can use that to find a unicorn deal that will still work with BRRRR.
Paul?
The most important thing on your first deal is to keep the risk low. You do this buy buying a quality asset in a good enough location. And by not biting off more than you can chew for the rehab. A cosmetic rehab is still quite a challenge for the first time. Paint, carpet, light fixtures, maybe some doors, plus odds and ends - you'll learn a lot! Conventional financing will work for this just fine. Yes you will need a 6 months seasoning period, but by the time you got the work done, a tenant moved in - the 6 months will be almost over. HML is expensive, better to use private money from friends or family. Once you got the first deal under your belt, you can start thinking about the second.
I did alright on my first 3 rehabs, but got over-confident and #4 was a massive mess and turned out to be a money pit. I took on too much. I remember looking at the $60,000 bank account for the rehab at almost zero, still checks to write and still more work I had not even scheduled yet. I felt physically sick and had to go tell my wife.. The good thing is that rentals are very forgiving and I eventually recovered and years later it even started cashflowing.
Your advice is invaluable, thank you! Lastly, do you typically find yourself cash-out refinancing your deals and, if you do, do you set your rent on the higher end to compensate for the increased mortgage costs you will inevitably have to pay after you refinance?
I am not in favor of growing via cash-out refi. If you just borrow more money, you are getting deeper in debt. As you mentioned, you have to eventually pay it all back, with interest. There is a healthy amount of leverage, but the whole point of investing is to grow equity, and eventually a return on that equity. If you constantly cash-out refi you reduce equity and cash flow.
That's why I am trying so hard to make the point that you need a business that generates cash so you have money to in-vest on top of what your W2 is making. You don't need to buy a car dealership, it can be a side hustle or an online business.
If you try to get more rent than fair market, you will rent to desperate tenants, who got rejected everywhere else. We do the opposite. We do everything we can to attract the best tenants possible and have them stay for many years. That's why our rehabs look more like flips and we even finish basements as we target families with kids who want to get into the school district.
"As you mentioned, you have to eventually pay it all back" - which is true, however you either pay interest (which is tax deductible) and keep the asset, or pay you tax.
If you never sell, (you will it to your offspring) you never pay tax and they don't pay tax. Which is what we teach our investors how to do. When you sell though, you have the added costs of sales (real estate agents, closing costs etc) and you have the problem of finding the next great deal.
Just thoughts for the lurkers.
That is not correct or accurate.
There is tax implications to inheriting property: https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types-of-i...
There is strategies to mitigate this such as trust but in such your not inheriting the property, there is just adjustments within the trust such as change of managers etc..
Finding a "next great buy" is NOT an issue if doing a strategy for enduring legacy.
Example, I have a client who recently transferred the reigns to generation 4, yes 4, of running the family REI Trust.
They have done 1031's going back generations, to which that tax-can is still getting kicked down field!
What Great-Grandpa started looooong ago, has now grown into this massive holdings.
So what do they do to "find the next great deal"?
They keep it simple, REAL SIMPLE, they only buy New-Con.
They sell an older inventory unit, get all there appreciation and equity liquid, and use it to secure 2 new built units.
Growing total holdings, resetting Cap-x clock, roll every dollar into that expanded holdings, and let it run 5-7yrs.
On average the entire portfolio keeps doubling every 7yrs. Do you have any clue how massive it's gotten now? Agent fee's etc. for cost of selling is a drop in the bucket compared to the returns.
This portfolio has now fully funded over a dozen university tuitions.
Because the cash-flow also keeps expanding.
Once upon a time they tried just camping out on properties for extended time periods. They found that cap-x kept gobbling up revenues and it was a net-0. BUT net-0 just on the cash-flow differential. What it DID cost them was appreciation, OPPORTUNITY COST, because they were only earning appreciation on that 1 vs the 2 it could have been had they pyramided when available.
And pyramiding not only multiplies the appreciation basis, it multiplies the cash-flow potential basis.
The math is very clear in this regard, compounding returns always beats static returns. That includes compounding returns basis.
Not to mention that as your unit count increases it insulates against impact of vacancy and other unforeseen expenses because each individual unit is mitigated across a larger grouping. This is how insurance works, imagine if an insurance carrier only had 10 people in it, 1 needs a surgery, POW that's a BIG hit. But with a million people 1 needing surgery is pin prick.
"But what if 500k need surgery at same time"..... Uh-huh, yeah we call that fantasy land. We have to work in reality sense of numbers not "what-if" ultra extremes of fantasy.
If you have 20 units, any 1 vacancy hit's 1/20th of revenues. VS with 2, vacancy in any 1 is 50% hit to revenues.
As unit count grows there is an arch of risk exposure that grows, crests, then starts dropping very fast. The trick is getting over that hump to descending risk exposure via unit ct. growth.
Your comments are misguided, too specific to only one of your clients, not applicable to general investors and therefore not worth responding to.
@Joe Villeneuve: My direct ancestors landed in Annapolis in 1698 and bought 7,000 acres of land. That was a big deal in the day. It all has depleted with time, taxes, war, inflation, divorce, wasteful spending, theft, incompetence and alcohol. The $7.36 I inherited didn't go very far. General investing by the typical investor on Bigger Pockets isn't thinking of or capable of providing directives for massive wealth accumulation. It has to be something the individual wants, and let's face it, that isn't your typical BP investor. True investors, that are personally guided, can get good results. Except for time, taxes, war, inflation, divorce, wasteful spending, theft, incompetence and alcohol.
Post: Why getting into real estate primarily for cash flow is wrong - and even dangerous
#5 All Forums ContributorPosted - Plymouth, MI
- Posts 13,464
- Votes 19,536
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Ken M.:
Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:
Quote from @Ethan Brackin:
Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:
Quote from @Ethan Brackin:
Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:
Quote from @Ethan Brackin:
Quote from @Paul Novak:
Quote from @Marcus Auerbach:
Quote from @Paul Novak:
Marcus I think this was a great post. I have not subscribed to the stance of trying to get into a property with as little down as possible just to generate cashflow. I have actually taking the unpopular stance of the exact opposite. I have tried to focus on properties that are in good locations where I can attract good tenants and then adjusted what I put down to hit my cashflow goals. Not adjusting for vacancy and maintenance my cashflow goal on a property is $500 per month at a minimum. We have put down 20 - 40% on some properties to achieve this goal. Like you said we have been saving upwards of 60% of our W2 income and business cashflow in order to do this.
Hi Paul! I think I am just south of you? Unpopular maybe, but for sure realistic and prudent. Buying quality assets that are in a desirable location and in good condition with a modest amount of leverage is IMO the only approach that I feel comfortable recommending. I have tried pretty much anything personally and I have seen so many investors start and either succeed or fail - well, let's call it abort and sell to never touch RE again.
And then I get calls from OOS investors who want to buy a 120k duplex in Milwaukee and when I try to tell them what will happen they go: uhm, I don't think we are a good fit. (Which is true, because I do mostly luxury residential, just trying to help)
Marcus, you are just south. I invest in the Sheboygan area. I agree with your assessments. So much content I see about ways to put as little money down as possible or doing the BRRR method so you can purchase a property and then pull out all the equity so after it's rehabbed you can get all your capital back out. I am not trying to knock those approaches and obviously they have worked great for many people but I feel the market is different then it was in the past. Personally I am not finding deals that could support those strategies in my market today based on my current skills and available time. If I took that approach I would have negative cashflow which isn't a good sustainable business model. I am okay with limited cashflow while I'm in my prime W2 working years but not negative. My business still needs to sustain itself. In my opinion that leaves me with two options. Sit back and wait for the market conditions to flip to where those strategies would work for me, or adapt to the current market. Sitting on the sidelines for me isn't an option. Knowing I'll be holding onto these properties for the next 30 years plus I have no issues with my strategy. I also am not looking for cheep properties in bad locations that could turn a quick buck. I want properties that I am proud to own and if I was personally looking for a rental I would be willing to rent. Obviously that isn't a requirement for most to buy a property but it's something that's important to me. Because I purchase properties like that I feel we attract tenants that we can relate to which helps us on the property management side with communication and working through issues.
Why do you believe there is a higher likelihood of negative cash flow with BRRRR? Is it because the loan you assume after a cash-out refinance is more likely to be higher than your gross cash flow?
Hi Ethan, I have been BRRRR-ing in Milwaukee for over a decade and after 2016-2018 or so I had to work increasingly harder to make deals work (much more complex rehabs: mold, foundation issues etc). Today our inventory is so low, that sellers don't have to give me 50% discount because of poor condition. They will find a first time home buyer that will be happy to pay close to what the neighbor's house (in great condition) is worth. If you can find one where you get the price to match the work needed, it is still one of the best strategies! But that's a big IF in 2025.
The approach that I take now is to let market appreciation and inflation do the heavy lifting for me. We have seen prices go up 8.2% in 2024 here and why would I work hard for half a year to do not that much better, if I can just do nothing instead?
Money, time and energy are interchangeable in real estate. If you don't have much money, but you do have time and energy, you can use that to find a unicorn deal that will still work with BRRRR.
Paul?
The most important thing on your first deal is to keep the risk low. You do this buy buying a quality asset in a good enough location. And by not biting off more than you can chew for the rehab. A cosmetic rehab is still quite a challenge for the first time. Paint, carpet, light fixtures, maybe some doors, plus odds and ends - you'll learn a lot! Conventional financing will work for this just fine. Yes you will need a 6 months seasoning period, but by the time you got the work done, a tenant moved in - the 6 months will be almost over. HML is expensive, better to use private money from friends or family. Once you got the first deal under your belt, you can start thinking about the second.
I did alright on my first 3 rehabs, but got over-confident and #4 was a massive mess and turned out to be a money pit. I took on too much. I remember looking at the $60,000 bank account for the rehab at almost zero, still checks to write and still more work I had not even scheduled yet. I felt physically sick and had to go tell my wife.. The good thing is that rentals are very forgiving and I eventually recovered and years later it even started cashflowing.
Your advice is invaluable, thank you! Lastly, do you typically find yourself cash-out refinancing your deals and, if you do, do you set your rent on the higher end to compensate for the increased mortgage costs you will inevitably have to pay after you refinance?
I am not in favor of growing via cash-out refi. If you just borrow more money, you are getting deeper in debt. As you mentioned, you have to eventually pay it all back, with interest. There is a healthy amount of leverage, but the whole point of investing is to grow equity, and eventually a return on that equity. If you constantly cash-out refi you reduce equity and cash flow.
That's why I am trying so hard to make the point that you need a business that generates cash so you have money to in-vest on top of what your W2 is making. You don't need to buy a car dealership, it can be a side hustle or an online business.
If you try to get more rent than fair market, you will rent to desperate tenants, who got rejected everywhere else. We do the opposite. We do everything we can to attract the best tenants possible and have them stay for many years. That's why our rehabs look more like flips and we even finish basements as we target families with kids who want to get into the school district.
"As you mentioned, you have to eventually pay it all back" - which is true, however you either pay interest (which is tax deductible) and keep the asset, or pay you tax.
If you never sell, (you will it to your offspring) you never pay tax and they don't pay tax. Which is what we teach our investors how to do. When you sell though, you have the added costs of sales (real estate agents, closing costs etc) and you have the problem of finding the next great deal.
Just thoughts for the lurkers.
That is not correct or accurate.
There is tax implications to inheriting property: https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types-of-i...
There is strategies to mitigate this such as trust but in such your not inheriting the property, there is just adjustments within the trust such as change of managers etc..
Finding a "next great buy" is NOT an issue if doing a strategy for enduring legacy.
Example, I have a client who recently transferred the reigns to generation 4, yes 4, of running the family REI Trust.
They have done 1031's going back generations, to which that tax-can is still getting kicked down field!
What Great-Grandpa started looooong ago, has now grown into this massive holdings.
So what do they do to "find the next great deal"?
They keep it simple, REAL SIMPLE, they only buy New-Con.
They sell an older inventory unit, get all there appreciation and equity liquid, and use it to secure 2 new built units.
Growing total holdings, resetting Cap-x clock, roll every dollar into that expanded holdings, and let it run 5-7yrs.
On average the entire portfolio keeps doubling every 7yrs. Do you have any clue how massive it's gotten now? Agent fee's etc. for cost of selling is a drop in the bucket compared to the returns.
This portfolio has now fully funded over a dozen university tuitions.
Because the cash-flow also keeps expanding.
Once upon a time they tried just camping out on properties for extended time periods. They found that cap-x kept gobbling up revenues and it was a net-0. BUT net-0 just on the cash-flow differential. What it DID cost them was appreciation, OPPORTUNITY COST, because they were only earning appreciation on that 1 vs the 2 it could have been had they pyramided when available.
And pyramiding not only multiplies the appreciation basis, it multiplies the cash-flow potential basis.
The math is very clear in this regard, compounding returns always beats static returns. That includes compounding returns basis.
Not to mention that as your unit count increases it insulates against impact of vacancy and other unforeseen expenses because each individual unit is mitigated across a larger grouping. This is how insurance works, imagine if an insurance carrier only had 10 people in it, 1 needs a surgery, POW that's a BIG hit. But with a million people 1 needing surgery is pin prick.
"But what if 500k need surgery at same time"..... Uh-huh, yeah we call that fantasy land. We have to work in reality sense of numbers not "what-if" ultra extremes of fantasy.
If you have 20 units, any 1 vacancy hit's 1/20th of revenues. VS with 2, vacancy in any 1 is 50% hit to revenues.
As unit count grows there is an arch of risk exposure that grows, crests, then starts dropping very fast. The trick is getting over that hump to descending risk exposure via unit ct. growth.
Your comments are misguided, too specific to only one of your clients, not applicable to general investors and therefore not worth responding to.