Interesting history, F&L. Good luck on your ventures but don't take on too many types of them as any investment requires focus and time. If you get a rental, be aware that too many tenants are completely naïve about maintaining a property beyond occasionally running the vacuum cleaner. If you are not competent to do handyman repairs and painting you will be paying your profits to pros to preserve the integrity of the property. Mechanical ability is needed to run vending machines as they are a target for trying to cheat. These may be 'passive businesses' but unless you are active you will be handing away all your profits.

@Tarantado wrote:

Studies have proven that active managed funds have a low chance in beating the market, after accounting for fees... Yes, previous results don’t determine present and future results, but the odds are against these money managers. I still don’t understand why active managers exist with fees out that ass when low fee index funds are out there. Nothing wrong with gambling your money on stock picking, but if you’re going to do that, might as well do it with minimal fees. As for the majority of people, anyone can literally start investing without ANY knowledge of the stock market. Simply, throw the extra funds in the S&P500 and watch your money grow. Simple as that.

Very true!

That first $3,000 I put into my IRA....welllllll, let's just say I was NOT a "winner" early in my investing career. I put it in a fund with the symbol BIGRX (you can Google and look at their results). Actually, my parents' accountant (who helped us choose it) selected that fund and said at my age a "growth" fund would be good. True. However, THAT fund sucked!

It was actively managed by people who chose crappy stocks.

It wasn't until I switched out of there (I'm in a Vanguard index fund for growth right now, in addition to single stocks) and handled my own money that I did better.

A passively managed index fund would have netted me much more than that actively managed fund. That's why Warren Buffett stresses so much to lay investors with no interest or skill in investing to just consistently buy a low-cost S&P 500 index fund. Studies have shown most managers cannot beat the stock market. So why not just buy the ENTIRE stock market through a broad fund like the S&P 500 or one of those "total stock market" funds?

You save a lot on fees and you are guaranteed 9 to 10% annual average returns.

The past decade from 2009 to 2019 has averaged 14% a year, so that's why many consider this a bubble we're in. Nevertheless, I do think just buying a low-cost S&P 500 index fund is a great baseline strategy (to whatever else a person might wish to do with other money), as it's historically proven to beat most money managers.

I also use an online brokerage, instead of an in person wealth manager/financial advisor brokerage, as they charge big selling and/or annual asset wealth commissions. Morgan Stanley, one of my parents' previous
(they switched now) brokerages and advisors charges an arm and leg to sell a stock, for example. It's about 1.5% of the trade itself, I believe. It's that ridiculous sell fee OR they had to pay them 1% of their total wealth under management by year end. I remember them having to pay $300 before (READ THAT AGAIN!) on a single stock trade/sales once.

An online brokerage like Fidelity or Vanguard charges just a few dollars. I named these two specifically, because I use them and also because they are the only two that I know of (both very big players - Fidelity the largest) that have a money back gaurantee for E-theft. If someone impersonates you and defrauds your online account and their investigation proves/shows you did not do whatever to lose or withdraw your money, then they will repay your losses for e-theft. No other online brokerages do that from what I've seen. Vanguard has voice software, on top of their security questions. You can program it so that when you call in they will only talk to you if your voice is recognized.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2019 10:12PM by shoptastic.

TD Ameritrade has $0 commissions. They used to charge $6.99, but once Charles Schwab eliminated their fees on stock trades, they had no choice but to follow. I think E-Trade is now commission-free as well.. I have been using TD Ameritrade's platform for several years. I am really happy about the $0 commissions these days. It makes it a lot easier to buy and sell stocks in smaller increments as the prices fluctuate.

From the TD Ameritrade website:

"If you lose cash or securities from your account due to unauthorized activity, we'll reimburse you for the cash or shares of securities you lost. We're promising you this protection, which adds to the provisions that already govern your account, if unauthorized activity ever occurs and we determine it was through no fault of your own."

@shoptastic wrote:

An online brokerage like Fidelity or Vanguard charges just a few dollars. I named these two specifically, because I use them and also because they are the only two that I know of (both very big players - Fidelity the largest) that have a money back gaurantee for E-theft. If someone impersonates you and defrauds your online account and their investigation proves/shows you did not do whatever to lose or withdraw your money, then they will repay your losses for e-theft. No other online brokerages do that from what I've seen. Vanguard has voice software, on top of their security questions. You can program it so that when you call in they will only talk to you if your voice is recognized.

They also have a property investment one. I forgot what it's called but I can research it. They handle the property management and you get a portfolio that says like you own 2% of a big apartment complex, plus whatever else properties you own. Part of the key is to reinvest your profits each year until you have enough invested. To determine if you have enough money invested, you calculate your monthly living expenses. Let's say you need 4k a month to live on, then you keep reinvesting your profits until your investment is producing 4k in profit every month. Then you will be financially independent. You can make your monthly living expenses even if you don't walk out the door that month. Or want to take a month-long vacation.

I was thinking of starting with Stash.

A couple of things . . . First, NO INVESTMENT CAN GUARANTEE A RETURN except US Treasuries and some General Obligation Municipal Bonds. Yes, the performance over 20 years may have been 9% or over the past 10 years 15% or over the past 5 years 18%, but there is reasonable reason to expect a recession within the next year or two that may bring a loss of 25% (or more or less) on your investments--whether they are real estate, stocks or anything else.

Second, the financial planning rule-of-thumb is that you can spend up to 4% of your invested assets per year and never go broke. Lets say you are working and you need $50,000 per year to pay all your bills. If you look at your expenses, you realize that if you weren't supporting 2 teenagers you could pay all your bills with $35,000 per year. If you were no longer working you could lower wardrobe and meals away from home and some other expenses so you could get by with $28,000. Your expected SS is $12,000 per year (see your annual expected benefit statement), so you need investments to cover the remaining $16,000 per year. Roughly you need $400,000 in invested assets to have your $16,000. Using all income/growth each year from your investments is risky business as your investments need to grow to provide you with more income in future years to cover inflation. Inflation is not bad now at only about 2% but back in the Regan years inflation was around 13% one year

@Flash wrote:

A couple of things . . . First, NO INVESTMENT CAN GUARANTEE A RETURN except US Treasuries and some General Obligation Municipal Bonds. Yes, the performance over 20 years may have been 9% or over the past 10 years 15% or over the past 5 years 18%, but there is reasonable reason to expect a recession within the next year or two that may bring a loss of 25% (or more or less) on your investments--whether they are real estate, stocks or anything else.

100% true, Flash. Good reminder above!!

I was saying OVER THE LONG-TERM, the S&P 500 has averaged 10% (I used to think it was 9%, but now when you factor in the Obama/Trump years, it's 10-11%! - number given by Fidelity).

But, yeah, you're 100% right that you cannot just expect 10% if you buy today. Maybe it will AVERAGE 10% over the next 10 years. But 1...2...3...etc. year performance varies by a lot.

Also, super agree we are at risk of recession! Average recessions see stocks drop 25-30%. Bad recessions see stocks drop 50% (like 2001 and 2008).

If we do go into recession for God sakes DON'T SELL YOUR STOCKS***!!!!!! (worst mistake people make) BUY!!!!! instead! (IF cheap).

***If you sold your stocks in 2009 after they fell 50%, you'd have missed out a lot. Within 2 or 3 years (around 2010 or 2011), they fully recovered in price and we went on to gain again.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2019 03:57AM by shoptastic.

IDK about that. Because if the property I bought the tax deed for is redeemed then I get 1200 back which is a guaranteed 20% profit. IF he does not redeem I can foreclosure and own the house. The house is currently valued at 12,000. I don't think I can lose. The only way I can lose is if I foreclose and something happens to the house before I can insure it. In which case I would still actually own the land for less than $5k. It's brick and stucco. [prntscr.com]

During the most recent depression the value of real estate in my area dropped 50%-75% and whatever you would describe for property nobody is willing to even take for free. As folks were being foreclosed on, some stripped out the wiring and pipes to sell for the value of the copper. As a shopper I 'babysat' a number of houses that were being auctioned off and it was truly amazing that folks literally removed to sell as surplus metal their kitchen sinks, screen doors, garage doors, faucets, etc. etc. For about $15 I could have bought an HVAC system the person being foreclosed on was willing to sell. The banks realized that they could not recover their legal costs of pursuing foreclosure, paying delinquent taxes, securing and insuring the properties, so they just left the properties empty and abandoned for a few years until the market began to recover.

I paid a thousand and the land value is just over 2200. Small rentals in this area do not central heat and air. I've been in my house for 7 years without heat and air. There will only be one bathroom and one kitchen (the house is only about 800 sq ft. I intend to use low-end supplies, (stable, but not expensive it's a rental after all) PVC not copper. Floating laminate and cheap tile. A new roof if necessary will be about 4-5k.I should be able to fix it up for under 10k. I will probably charge maybe 400 a month for rent. Fixed up it will be worth more than it is. For me, it will be ok. I will put homeowners on it I'm not looking for a place with big costs to keep if empty. I wanted a small house that would be a start with minimal taxes, not something that would overextend me. I've read the taxes. I"ve got credit. I've got a perfect payment record on my credit, no charge offs or collections. Trust me it's a perfect starter house for me. I've thought this through. People who are too scared to try and fail can never succeed. If I try and fail what happens? I learn, I learn from my mistakes and I do it again. OH, ye of little faith!

Certainly not 'too scared to try and fail' with rental real estate. I did that already and learned from my mistake. I was unable to benefit from the tax advantages of mandatory depreciation and eventually made very little profit from the ongoing investment of time and money. Best wishes for your venture.

If rental properties are such a losing venture why do so many people have rentals? My landlord has about 5 rentals. He does not have another job.i'm not sure the market you are in, but maybe it has to do with your location. You have to know your rental market and who you can rent to in that neighborhood. I'm buying a house where you can not have high expectations from your tenants. I will have to maintain my homeowner's insurance. But I already have a plan for "who" I will rent to. I'm paying at the very low end of rent for this area, I may even be underpaying. So I'm keeping my rental estimates the same, very low. The goal is not to make a big profit on this house. The goal for this house is to gain experience and an asset that I can borrow off to invest in a better property. Will it be a headache at times? I'm sure it will. Will I be able to rent to stereotypical "good" tenants at this location (clean background, clean credit)? Probably not. but hey I have a plan for that too. Of course, I'm willing to give certain characteristics a chance. Characteristics some people may not be willing to consider.

Rental housing is often used to offset gains in other investments for tax efficiency. There is also that aspect of whether you are willing to treat your tenants as yourself. When the refrigerator goes, do you get a replacement from the 'used & rebuilt' for $75 or do you buy a new one? Do you touch up paint scrapes at your expense between tenants or do you deduct a repaint from the security deposit?

My tenants basically covered the mortgage, insurance and property taxes, though I got to pay income taxes on the rent they paid me. When they ran out on a lease or it was several months between tenants, I had to come up with cash for the mortgage and taxes. When I sold the rental after 10 years I got to pay taxes on the 'profit' which is of course sale price less cost basis and my cost basis had been reduced each year by mandatory depreciation. Putting pencil to paper, I 'earned' less than minimum wage for the hours spent cleaning and painting and repairing things I could fix myself. My investment would have been more profitable in the stock market or even in CDs at the bank with a whole lot less grief.

Your experience may vary and as I mentioned above, you have my best wishes for your venture. My rental property was in a nice blue collar neighborhood about 5 blocks from the hospital and my tenants were mostly nurses at the hospital.

Holding on to all gains such as stocks, rental properties, investments and not selling is where you make your money. My uncle in San Francisco worked as an upholster and saved every penny (a long time ago), he bought an apartment building in San Francisco in a good area and kept it all these long years until his death, now his daughter (my cousin) has it paid for, maintains it and gets 4 to 6 thousand a month (per unit) depending on size. This is far fetched as one can't afford to buy an Apt.. these days, just an example. We started (my ex actually) buying stocks when she was seven, and today she has the portfolio.... as he always said, you need money when you retire and nothing is coming in. For the smaller investor, old properties that need work, and they all do, become expensive to maintain unless you can do the work yourself and have good tenants. We had five rentals in the old days, but eventually sold due to divorce and wish I had kept one or two, but who knew how inflated prices would become, especially in CA. People have also lost on rentals and just couldn't hang on, so be careful about location and good luck.

I so agree with you Irene. Had my Dad held on to his investment property, he would be sitting pretty now. He Is still looking good though, but man, oh man, had he knew. I also know many of my co-workers pulled their money out of their investment accounts when we hit the recession years ago. What a huge mistake. So, who is a millionaire here?

Buying and holding a broad index fund over the long-term is safe.

That's not the case with individual companies/stocks. Any single company can actually go out of business and the whole stock value go to $0. My parents had that happen with one of their stocks. They should have sold it earlier, but didn't. THankfully, it was one of many they owned, in addition to various funds, so that one loss didn't destroy them or anything like that.

There was a story I heard last year, I think, of a man who had his entire retirement practically in GE stock. When it crashed, he was in very bad shape. Crazy how anyone can just put all their investments into a single stock!

Did you Know?

In March 6, 2009, ULTA Beauty stock was listed at $4.40.

On April, 5, 2019 (10 years later), it was trading at $353.00.

If you invested $1,000 into ULTA back then (227 shares), it would be $80,131 on April of this year (since lowered).

CRAZY! ...80x your money.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2019 07:42AM by shoptastic.

Attempting to determine which company transitioning from private ownership to publicly traded stock will do well both in the short term and the long term is a total crap shoot. In a time when public sentiment seems to favor 'organic', 'non-GMO', no chemical additives as being the path to health, who would have thought that a totally artificial, chemical product such as Beyond Meat would be a skyrocket stock when it came to market? And who would have predicted that Uber would go from about $47 per share to $25? Uber, after all, has all the financial advantages that a medallion cab does not have and yet it will still be quite some time before it shows any profitability as a company, while medallion cabs keep on making money, doing background checks and undergoing regulatory scrutiny.

Yes, if I had bought and held Apple back before Steve Jobs returned to the company, when it was trading at around $5 per share and pretty much written off as dead, I would be a very wealthy person today. But reliable crystal balls are hard to come by, which is why it makes sense to buy index funds as being reliable, if plodding.

"...plodding" Or, slow and steady wins the race. Signed, #_notreallyatortoisebutilikethoseploddingcritters

@shoptastic wrote:

Did you Know?

In March 6, 2009, ULTA Beauty stock was listed at $4.40.

On April, 5, 2019 (10 years later), it was trading at $353.00.

If you invested $1,000 into ULTA back then (227 shares), it would be $80,131 on April of this year (since lowered).

CRAZY! ...80x your money.

It isn’t that crazy when people realize stock picking is gambling.

Just got back from a cruise to Mexico last week. If I had placed a $100 bet on a midnight on that next roll that hit it in craps, I’d come out of that casino with $3000 off of one roll.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 07:23PM by Tarantado.

@Tarantado wrote:

@shoptastic wrote:

Did you Know?
In March 6, 2009, ULTA Beauty stock was listed at $4.40.

On April, 5, 2019 (10 years later), it was trading at $353.00.

If you invested $1,000 into ULTA back then (227 shares), it would be $80,131 on April of this year (since lowered).
CRAZY! ...80x your money.

It isn’t that crazy when people realize stock picking is gambling.

Just got back from a cruise to Mexico last week. If I had placed a $100 bet on a midnight on that next roll that hit it in craps, I’d come out of that casino with $3000 off of one roll.

If you're buying without reading quarterly reports that are available via a company's "Investor Relations" department (listed on the website of every publicly traded company) and coming up with a valuation for that company, then I'd agree that one is gambling most likely.

Informed investors, who buy good companies at attractive valuations, are not gambling, but rather smartly buying a share of that company. As with any business there is risk, but it is certainly not gambling when done with due diligence research.

I have a circle of competence for which I am willing to pick companies to invest money into. I do think that buying an S&P 500 index fund should be a good baseline approach, however. For people who have a genuine interest in investing, then you can go further and also add individual companies. To me, that is a safe route, b/c you can always fall back on your index fund(s).

For the best layperson's stock picking guide, I would recommend what some people consider the Bible of stock picking, One Up on Wall Street, by Peter Lynch (who annualized 29% a year for his entire career as a fund manager).

[www.amazon.com]

Lynch has argued that the layperson, who uses what they know around them, is a better stock picker than professional portfolio managers. I remember in one of his books, there was an example of elementary school kids picking stocks (from companies and products they liked - Disney, McDonald's, etc.) and having that basket of stocks beat professional money managers. The biggest takeaway people credit Lynch with is the notion of using what you know around you in everyday life to gain an advantage over professional money managers. There is some disagreement nowadays whether Lynch's view still holds, b/c professional firms have such extensive research teams now that were much smaller decades ago. But, I still think it's a great read and offers valuable insights into stock picking.

For stock/company valuation (i.e., analyzing the financials), a good layperson's resource is Aswath Damodaran (Professor of Finance at NYU)'s blog, YouTube, Twitter, and website:

[people.stern.nyu.edu]

As much as I dislike CNBC, he's one of the guests on there that I think are honest and informative. They frequently call him "The Dean of Valuation" and he has a reputation as having greatly democratized stock valuation for the masses through his writing. He makes it simple for people not trained in it.

HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, I would NOT recommend individual stock picking to people who have no interest or background knowledge on it. THAT WOULD BE gambling!

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 11:52PM by shoptastic.

I'll have to find the quote, but Aswath Damodaran gave a lecture at Google, I believe, where he said 3 out of every 4 valuations that you here analysts cite in financial media news are impossible. Literally impossible to make the math work for. That was a real eye-opener for me.

So many are just salesmen with conflicting interests. Trying to sell you overvalued stocks for their own commission benefit!

The notion that reading quarterly reports and such will assure you informed purchases and that informed purchases will have any guarantee of success is sweet but naïve. Every wirehouse, fund family and management firm has their own analysts who not only know the reports forward and backward but visit the companies for first hand information about the company and visit similar companies to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the competition. The analysts carefully listen to all company presentations, including conference calls where the companies present the reasons for their successes and shortcomings in the previous month and quarter as well as hear their projections for the future month, quarter and year. Most of the time an analyst focuses on one small sector of the market in which they have professional training and education of their own. Analysts then advise their wirehouse, fund or management firm of the most promising companies in their sector for investments.

Analysts are human and even for all of their expertise and effort, they often get it wrong. It is unrealistic to expect that an individual investor has the time or expertise of an analyst to study a company completely and if even the experts often get it wrong, the individual investor needs to expect to be wrong on a regular basis.

Diversification means owning investments in many different companies across the spectrum of business. Traditionally that was done with mutual funds. If one company in the portfolio bombed, the other companies in the portfolio would help the portfolio retain value. These days it is much more economical to purchase index funds. It gives the investor the diversification they need.

@Flash wrote:

The notion that reading quarterly reports and such will assure you informed purchases and that informed purchases will have any guarantee of success is sweet but naïve.

I don't think there is any guarantee of success per se in investing, Flash. That language is too strong for me.

Although, I don't think it's as scary as some people think. I think if one has a short time horizon, then investing can be very volatile at times. But over a decade or more? The proof is in the numbers as they say!

The natural state of the U.S. economy is expansion. One of the things I've learned, too, is that the natural state of the stock market is up. That's why it is so hard to short (i.e., bet against) the market or any one stock, because on any given day of any given year, the stock market will be going up statistically much more on average than going down. I don't know the exact numbers off-hand, but I think it's something like only 1 out of every 4 stock market days has it gone down. Economies naturally expand. People naturally improve their work, make more things, offer more services, etc. It's the natural state of things in a free market.

Over the LONG-TERM, the stock market's direction is up. In that sense, it's "safe." I guess one could always worry about some crazy natural disaster or war or what have you that destroys all of humanity or the U.S. But, I feel like if we want that type of guarantee, then we'd never leave our homes! We could be struck by lightning or randomly killed by a falling rock, etc.

In terms of what makes for adequate research, I have definitely heard push back against Peter Lynch's famous, One Up on Wall Street, as mentioned above. People have said that was at a time when investment houses didn't have armies of researchers as they do today. Lauren Templeton, who is the grand niece of Sir John Templeton (who some say is the greatest investor in all of history), has said that she thinks the edge today is often more psychological than informational. Everyone has such good information, but many people cannot do the "right thing" at the right moment. She has repeatedly said in her investment talks that she's had employees for her hedge fund who had qualifications much greater than her own. They were smarter in the academic sense and had credentials to die for. But when it came time to buy stocks after they had crashed 30, 40, or 50%, they could not pull the trigger. She's told stories of how these workers were scared, despite having all the intellectual knowledge to do so, and were unable to make money for their clients. Some left the field and some became analysts, but did not stay on in management positions of their portfolios. She's said this is very common. When you have to take clients' money - sometimes 10's of millions - and buy a stock that has lost 50% of it's value, it's different doing in for real than studying it in a book. Lauren, by the way, who started buying stocks in trust from age six, is a natural and relishes (not fear) buying stocks when they have crashed in a bear market or correction. I recommend her talks on YouTube. Very inspirational and educational!

I don't know if Peter Lynch's message about the average person having an advantage over portfolio managers is true or not today. I think it still can be in areas you are very comfortable with and knowledgeable about. But you have to also know your circle of competence (and be careful about going outside of it). My parents owned a small business for 15+ years in a shopping center in which I saw businesses come and go. I saw what businesses failed and which ones succeeded. I know what products my friends and family use and why they like them. I ask people a lot of questions over dinner on products and services they use and their feedback on them.

Peter Lynch was said to have constantly done this throughout his investing career. It's said that if the Queen of England sat next to him for dinner and a person of no reputation were next to him playing with a unique pen in her hand, he would talk to the person with the pen and ask what the product was, why she liked it, what it cost, etc. He made some stock decisions based on informal research of polling his friends, family, colleagues, and acquaintances that he talks about in his book.

He says Jane, Joe, or Bob often have the upper hand in stock picking when it comes to things they interact with and see in their daily lives, because they see these things' popularity first-hand often much EARLIER than Wall Street does. Additionally, many fund managers operate with handicaps. This part, I'm not sure is from Lynch, but it's often said. Fund managers cannot pick stocks for the long-term. If they have two consecutive down years, they can be fired. And their bonuses often hinge on quarter-to-quarter or year-end performance. That means make short-term decisions and many also recklessly chase gains if they are behind near year-end.

Those without those constraints can make better decisions. Lyn Alden, who I referenced previously, says we play different games. Fund managers play short-term games. But, lay investors can play long-term strategies.

As for valuations, you can definitely learn what metrics are most commonly used for stock valuation to see if something is decently priced (or over and under-priced). True, there is some subjectivity there and past performance of a company does not guarantee future continued performance. But, the risk is not as crazy as people might think.

Aswath Damodaran's valuation of Netflix is a great learning example in my mind. I'll have to look it up for a refresher and will post what I mean. He shows easily why Netflix's valuation can be non-sensical just based on simple math. If every person on planet Earth (some 6 billion) bought a Netflix subscription for the going rate, it would still not come close to the market cap and earnings projected/valued in the stock price.

Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2019 06:20AM by shoptastic.

@F and L TeleComm wrote:

If rental properties are such a losing venture why do so many people have rentals?

If you're really interested, spend a few days reading the message boards at BiggerPockets.com.

The problem with rentals is that in many states, the tenants have all the rights and many know how to play the system -- and they will. Only takes one nasty POS to really hurt your bottom line.

I have a few rental properties in CO. I've been a landlord for about 20 years. I've actually been lucky; but Colorado is a state where landlord/tenant laws are not slanted in favor of the tenants. However, there are 5 states where other LLs are selling property like crazy....after having tenants stay for a year or more without paying rent and then damaging the property upon their exit to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

My personal thought is that many of those LLs who sell in those other states are going to be buying in states where the laws are more LL friendly...maybe CO, but the prices in CO are cost prohibitive to living by the typical LL "1% rule." If they do buy in CO, the prices in CO will continue to go up (more demand).

I have lots of thoughts on LLs/tenants. Lots of experience. I'm really glad to be in CO as a LL. It makes my "SAHM" status be more of a "work from home/working partner" status

We do rent out our properties for a bit under market value for the current tenants because it's a gamble to get new tenants. We want to keep the ones we have in 4 of our houses. In 2, maybe....we shall see.

We also have a house that we bought precisely because it's conducive to having room mates. We have 4 kids and took on another, so we have to be careful about who we rent the basement to. But the basement is large (1200 square feet) with two bedrooms with closets in the bedrooms plus closets in the hallway outside of each bedroom. There is a family room in the basement, too. There is a main level WITHOUT a TV. This makes people less apt to "hang out" in that area. The main level has an office space that everyone can use; a living room; a sitting room; and a large kitchen/dining room. The main level is for everyone. People talk and interact there. The upstairs is family only. There are 5 bedrooms upstairs and a loft style family room where we have our family TV, and where we can relax. (Room mates have their own TVs in their rooms)We rent our bedrooms out at $550/month, which is actually quite a bit below market value. I'm seeing rooms in this area going for $700 plus and just a little further west, they are above $700.... seen some listed at $900/month.

In addition to renting our rooms, I cook for the room mates. I sell them "plates," and they absolutely love it. I have a menu posted and they choose what they want and there is a "price per plate" listed. They never DON'T opt for the meals. In selling one plate, I feed one person in my family. It's not a lot of money, true. But if I'm going to be cooking anyway, I think that saving the cost of 1-2 family members' food prices daily is great.

We will probably make extra money today simply because of weather. Roads are closed, supplies cannot get here, and none of us early birds are getting our worms (in a manner of speaking). If work supplies arrive so late that some people already have gone to their 9-5s, we can pick up their early work for today and earn decent money for doing so. Such a deal.

DOOD! - Disney is reported to have 10 million subscribers to Disney+ the first day.

That's more than some streaming services have gotten their entire lifetime:

[www.cnbc.com]

Disney was a Lyn Alden stock pick earlier this year. I wish I owned them, but want to buy cheap.

Is anyone going to subscribe to Disney+ and/or ditch Netflix now as your streaming provider? I probably will.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2019 02:05AM by shoptastic.

No.