Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Doesn’t sound very fun with 3 kids getting lost in Manhattan and wasting the whole day trying to figure out what subway line to take.
Need Ownership
Started by Pudortu
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
This is excellent information Cyanide!
When you say you are targeting 1.5 - 2 % of gain per month on the account. Do yo do this with selling covered calls? CSPs? PMCCs? Or another strategy? Thanks for your guidance.
Strangles usually or naked puts. Strangles initially made me nervous, but the research from tasty trade has shown that strangles is essentially one of the best strategies. So I'm starting to use them and getting comfortable with them. My strikes are extremely conservative though. Seems like the really successful traders all do things like strangles or iron condors. Fyi, a strangle is the simultaneous selling of a naked put and call on the same underlying. It is a strategy when your outlook is neutral essentially, so neither bullish nor bearish. You are betting two opposite things, so if one leg of your option is a losing trade, the other leg mitigates the loss by being a winner.
For example 12 days ago, i sold the following strangle on RUT (Russell 2000 index). This was roughly $2320 when i sold the strangle:
Leg 1) RUT 11 naked calls strike $2660, expiry 8/6 (45 days to expiry at the time of order). Premium for this leg was $1144
Leg 2) rut 11 naked puts strike $1900, expiry 8/6. Premium for this leg = $4840
The above trade used $250,000 of my cash buying power. So roughly 2.4% cash on cash return, or 19% annualized.
The theoretical maximum profit in 45 days on the above trade is $5984. I have 4 other trades open on abnb, sfix, pins, and lmnd. But predominantly RUT is my go to.
In short, if in 45 days rut stays between $2660 and $1900 then i realize my maximum profit. But you should never wait for expiry.
When either leg achieves 50% of it's profit, i buy back that option and close position. Then start a new one. Usually 50% is achieved in 2-3 weeks. Or if a large directional move is happening, i may close position at 3 x premium loss. One leg should always be winning when the other is losing.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Very nice. I am doing or want to do all these things. Also have a redwood forest out back and getting real into green woodworking.
Can I ask which solar setup you use and what was the initial cost and ongoing maintenance? I looked into this a while ago and it was ~$30k initial for a rooftop system that would last ~10 years. Didn't seem quite worth it at that price point and longevity.
My framing is less that I'm a prepper and more that I'm just a crazy hippie and hopefully a good neighbor. I enjoy this stuff and many others in my hood do as well. We enjoy sharing the fruits of our labor, and they have all kinds of established fruit trees whereas my trees are just starting out.
See; I get creeped out when you use words like "strangle" and "naked" together.
Like, what is this: "50 Shades of Finance"?
Like, what is this: "50 Shades of Finance"?
Not meant to be misconstrued as medical advice:
You might be experiencing burnout. Consult with your employer/colleagues for more resources.
Why would it matter if it was taken as medical advice?
Trying to get the thread back on track 😉
Lol
Was your post more tongue-in-cheek than I interpreted?
My solar was about 45k with a 20 year warranty. More like 33ish k after tax rebates.
Worth it? Or not really?
It always depends how long you plan to own the home. Generally you need to own the home 10 years or more to recoup the investment.
Ya I think so. Were prob saving 2500 on electricity per year so itll pay for itseld even if rates stay flat. Also, once we get battery backup itll be peace of mind.
My wife said were gonna die in that house so I hope its a long asses time.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
A 35yo doc with a 1.7M NW ? Dude, you've won the game. They say getting rich is hard, but staying rich is even harder. I'd avoid any high risk ventures at this time. Urgent cares are struggling in my area right now with volume and the market is saturated.
Staying rich is definitely not harder than getting rich that’s so absurd lmao
Staying rich when you started off poor is extremely easy. Staying rich when you never worked for it is very hard. They say all the money is lost by the 3rd generation.
Take a fit 30 yrs old and they will have no problem staying fit.
Make a 40 BMI guy extremely fit with a magic pill and dude will be 40 BMI in a year.
Make a Fit 30 yr old Fat and he will be fit in 1 yr.
Take a fit 30 yrs old and they will have no problem staying fit.
Make a 40 BMI guy extremely fit with a magic pill and dude will be 40 BMI in a year.
Make a Fit 30 yr old Fat and he will be fit in 1 yr.
"In 1982, Forbes Magazine published its first list of the wealthiest people in the world (The Forbes 400). Thirty years later, in 2012, more than 70% of that inaugural class no longer made the cut. Getting rich is hard. Staying rich is harder. The skill set to create wealth is very different from the skill set to keep wealth. Creating wealth often requires assuming measures of concentrated risk-taking coupled with a healthy dose of luck (don’t underestimate the role of luck). Maintaining wealth requires dialing down the risk and adopting a bit of humility when it comes to your confidence regarding future investment outcomes."
Creating wealth and keeping wealth are two different skillsets.
I agree that those that inherit wealth are inclined to lose it, given enough generations. However, the fact that 70% of the inaugural class of Forbes richest people aren't on the list doesn't mean all 70% are no longer wealthy. Many (if not most) may still be very wealthy. They may however, have been passed by others whose wealth grew beyond faster than theirs, and therefore bumped them out of the top 400. Just because Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos came along and accumulated $100 billion+, doesn't mean your $2 billion, isn't still big money and growing.
I agree that you can't make that conclusion from this data.
If the top 400 back then had an avg net worth of 100M and in 30 yrs had a net worth of 500M then you would say they did a great job of creating wealth. But 500M today will not get you into the top 5000 most likely
Last edited:
I think we're conflating two different issues. That quote illustrates how hard it is to maintain wealth. If maintaining wealth was easy , why are 70% of them no longer billionaires?
Yes, if a billionaire loses 80% of their wealth , they'll still be "rich" but that wasn't the point. The point is that it's a lot harder to maintain wealth.
The point is being a billionaire 30 yrs ago doesn't guarantee you to be top 400 in 30 yrs even if your wealth doubles. There are an abundance of tech start ups that will create many Billionaires.
Falling out of the Forbes 400 doesn’t mean you’re not a billionaire anymore.
I believe the Forbes 400 was simply the 400 richest, not necessarily a list of those that crossed the billionaire threshold. It was simply who has the most money, implying that if you were #400 you’d could get richer, and still fall off the list, if #401 had his wealth growth accelerate faster.
Yes maintaining wealth has a lot to do with the rate at which one accumulates wealth
Take $200k of your $1.7m and sell options. Really not *that* hard and $200k can generate $2-8k/mo of low-risk income depending on volatility with a couple clicks a month. Way easier than becoming a slumlord or buying into a business. The main risk is losing out on the upside if the underlying takes off. Put $1.5m in your desired asset allocation (80/20, 60/40, whatever) in low cost index funds (VTI + BND or VTI + VSUX + BND) then buy a couple high volatility growth stocks (preferably in the $10-$20 range so you can sell 100-200 contracts) and sell covered calls, straddles, iron condors, wheel etc.. if you're single you probably don't even really have to do that but it's nice to be able to pay living expenses rather than use taxable investments.
I don't think it's that hard to keep wealth. Don't invest in anything risky once you've hit FIRE, and put your money into "set it and forget it" mode. With a couple million in assets, just stick it into index funds, or various sector funds, and re-invest the dividends. Should be more than enough to last well into retirement without touching the 401K.
Most investing websites have retirement tools. Fidelity has one that can integrate all your accounts from other institutions and can extrapolate out your income to any age you want. Mine says I can retire now, and with expenses of 10K per month and about 150K in part-time income .
I don't think getting to Fire for most docs is too difficult if they don't go crazy with spending. When you retire, just scale back.
If you want to retire with the same lifestyle when you are making 400K then its a different story.
My goal at retirement is to have enough passive income so I can leave all my kids millionaires. I know some may disagree with this, but I want my kids taken care of and not struggle like I had to. I will definitely teach them about money and keeping wealth.
If you want to retire with the same lifestyle when you are making 400K then its a different story.
My goal at retirement is to have enough passive income so I can leave all my kids millionaires. I know some may disagree with this, but I want my kids taken care of and not struggle like I had to. I will definitely teach them about money and keeping wealth.
The thing is, while I was making 400K, I was spending like I was making 200K. It's therefore easy to get to FIRE at 2-3 million in retirement/investments.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I highly disagree with this
I am in the same spending boat around 2-250k/yr. if u want to keep the 200k lifestyle, u need way more than 2M.
I plan on cutting back by 50 and that leaves me 30-40 yrs left to live. 2M without any passive income will not do it. I don’t want to worry about having enough when I’m 75.
thus my need to have passive equal 300k/yr to essentially ensure I won’t touch my investments/retirement.
even if I had 5M at retirement, I have no idea if that will last 35 yrs. I know the calculators tell me it will but what happens when the market tanks during 2001/2008/2020? I could be looking at 2-3M loss and having to scale back my lifestyle.
thus I hope to have 300k in rental income. People have to live somewhere so it will never dry up completely.
just redid my net worth and I’m right at 5M. 2.5M rentals, 1M market, 300k cash, and 500k business. 1M equity in our homestead. Once I clear my 1.3M in rental debt, I think I’ll be at my FIRE.
I plan on cutting back by 50 and that leaves me 30-40 yrs left to live. 2M without any passive income will not do it. I don’t want to worry about having enough when I’m 75.
thus my need to have passive equal 300k/yr to essentially ensure I won’t touch my investments/retirement.
even if I had 5M at retirement, I have no idea if that will last 35 yrs. I know the calculators tell me it will but what happens when the market tanks during 2001/2008/2020? I could be looking at 2-3M loss and having to scale back my lifestyle.
thus I hope to have 300k in rental income. People have to live somewhere so it will never dry up completely.
just redid my net worth and I’m right at 5M. 2.5M rentals, 1M market, 300k cash, and 500k business. 1M equity in our homestead. Once I clear my 1.3M in rental debt, I think I’ll be at my FIRE.
Last edited:
Sounds easy but once you've accumulated wealth there's always the temptation to accumulate more and spend more. Why stop at 1M , why not 2M, 3M, 4M etc? The same drive that made someone a millionaire doesn't just disappear.
I read a great book on behavioral finance called The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel. It discussed story after story of great wealthy men that lost everything because they didn't know when to quit the game after they've won.
The OP at his age has already won the game but probably doesn't even know it yet. He's looking to start a business . It could be a feast, it could be famine. Not a bet I'm willing to make.
Successful people are used to work and have challenges. You don’t go from a hard worker to next day have nothing to do.
We are no the lazy, wake up anytime, watch tv til dusk kind of people. That would drive us crazy.
There has to always be some type of challenge, hobby, work to keep us happy.
I am close to FIRE and even if I got $10M, you bet I will be still working in some capacity if physically able.
waking up each morning having nothing to do/look forward to is depressing
We are no the lazy, wake up anytime, watch tv til dusk kind of people. That would drive us crazy.
There has to always be some type of challenge, hobby, work to keep us happy.
I am close to FIRE and even if I got $10M, you bet I will be still working in some capacity if physically able.
waking up each morning having nothing to do/look forward to is depressing
Bezos, Musk. Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett. They could have retired 1,000 times over. They choose to still work.
Your statement that "most physicians do not achieve 'financial independence' because they spend too much is ridiculous. Why then do doctors stereotypically drive Benzs, Porsches, Lamborghinis, etc.?? I would link an article but this point is too simple to merit one.
Why don't you ask them
Why are you asking me? If this is a concern of yours, focus on your own finances.
Well, I know a whole lot of community physicians who DO drive Porsches, Lambos, and even a Ferrari (in my little suburb.) Many of them are not on their first wife, either.
The majority aren't retiring anytime soon, either. And that's not necessarily by choice.
Docs are historically lousy at managing money. This forum is an outlier. A HUGE outlier.
I am an outlier and I freely admit that. (I am also pretty much FIREd, but "retired" from EM... to a much happier subspecialty. I work because I want to, not because I need to. Well, I need something to do, and it's fulfilling.)
but I digress.
The majority aren't retiring anytime soon, either. And that's not necessarily by choice.
Docs are historically lousy at managing money. This forum is an outlier. A HUGE outlier.
I am an outlier and I freely admit that. (I am also pretty much FIREd, but "retired" from EM... to a much happier subspecialty. I work because I want to, not because I need to. Well, I need something to do, and it's fulfilling.)
but I digress.
Agree with you here. I will be doing SOMETHING, but I'm not going to risk my financial stability on any untested ventures. I might invest a few thousand here and there on a new project, but certainly not emptying out my 401K to start an urgent care. The best part of having your financial security is the freedom to seek out other projects where you have control. In three months I will have complete control of my schedule, and drop my work hours in half. I'm done working 140 hours/month for another person/company where I have no control.
I see your point, but that's not what you said originally. Changing your point means that you are starting to see MY point 😉
I think this is the thing that many Type A people miss:
If you have enough money, you don't have to stop doing things and just sit around and watch Three's Company reruns. You should just stop doing the things that put you at risk of losing your money.
Instead, maybe you should start doing other things that don't involve losing money, or maybe even don't involve money at all.
I have about 500 things I want to do in life. No one's ever gonna pay me to do them. I just want to do them. So, that's why I want to FIRE.
If you have enough money, you don't have to stop doing things and just sit around and watch Three's Company reruns. You should just stop doing the things that put you at risk of losing your money.
Instead, maybe you should start doing other things that don't involve losing money, or maybe even don't involve money at all.
I have about 500 things I want to do in life. No one's ever gonna pay me to do them. I just want to do them. So, that's why I want to FIRE.
Last edited:
Speaking of ownership. I'm trying to pick which commercial real estate i will put my next 25k in. Split between
And
Decisions decisions -_-
Both is not the correct answer because im also putting 25k in ashcroft capital fund and 50k in BAM capital in the next 2-3 months. Essentially running out of liquidity.
Any suggestions from anyone?
And
Decisions decisions -_-
Both is not the correct answer because im also putting 25k in ashcroft capital fund and 50k in BAM capital in the next 2-3 months. Essentially running out of liquidity.
Any suggestions from anyone?
Both links are behind a login wall for whatever website this is.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
How did you find Ashcroft and BAM capital as options in which to invest?
I have plenty of cash laying around but am having difficulty figuring out where to start when it comes to vetting a variety of crowdfunded/sourced investments like the ones you're getting into (real estate etc)
It's crowdstreet. Oh well... Guess they don't like showing their real estate deals without logging in
They seem to have a fairly good reputation in the biggerpockets community which is the largest real estate online community.
Ashcroft and Bam headed by Joe fearless and ivan barratt have been in the business for a while, have good reputations, fund based approach so the capital is spread across 5-7 deals. They both operate conservatively with cash flowing deals that can be held in market down turns and not sold at bad times. Neither has had loss of investor capital so far. Bam is going to be local to me in Indy after i move as well. Ashcroft has 1.2 billion AUM and BAM manages 450 million of real estate. So better experience than I'll ever have personally 😛 Ashcroft fees are higher, with a less desirable waterfall split. Bam has a very fair split.
Other than those two, somedays i think of open door capital as well. That's a fund that primarily invests in trailor parks. It was started by Brandon turner, author of some huge books in real estate and the host of the largest real estate podcast - bigger pockets podcast. But their fund is only 2-3 years old with about 50-100 million assets under management.
Edit: you could also consider BREIT - Blackstone private equity investments. The mother of all funds, something like 50+ billion in assets under management in their real estate fund, but returns similar to reits around 10-13 percent. So then there may be no point of not just owning a public reit instead like VNQ. Ivans fund target is around 15-18 percent return. Ashcroft is expecting around 13-17% returns. Their numbers look fairly reasonable and realistic
Last edited:
I am involved in 5 Ashcroft ventures. They have a good reputation and have done a good job IMO.
How dare you diss Three’s company.
