this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
143 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
863 readers
300 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
$25 X 150 =$3,750 $3,750 X 12 = $45,000
what is he talking about? also,
He did 150x25x12 and did not elaborate further. He then goes on to say profit = revenue - expenses with fancier, but no more insightful, terms (and he stands to make money on appreciation of the asset)
In other words, it's as dumb as you think. I suspect it's designed to get your attention and innervate dead Internet bots to argue with you. The ultimate goal of this being to peddle online classes and get email list subscriptions (to sell ad space for newsletters). It's tiring and it makes the whole world grayer and less worth sticking around for.
Okay I found the video, for some reason he just divides by .06 at the end? Glad our economic system rewards people of this rarified kind of genius.
Actually it's dumber than I thought, it's apparently because .06 is the divider for what someone is willing to pay for a certain amount of cash flow (i.e. for this example since rent is being raised $300 a year, 300/.06 means someone would pay $5,000 to obtain that cash flow). So he is saying that in a completely frictionless vacuum, increasing the price of 150 rental units by $25 a month increases their asset value by $750,000.
This is the rental equivalent of stranded castaways trading watches back and forth forever
shit, i would have thought the 6% kicker represented avoided interest on the loan he took to buy the unit, assuming he's putting the extra revenue from raised rent toward principal.
one of the shitty things about "real estate investors" is that they leverage their existing assets to borrow more money to buy more property and some are real aggressive, so they get into trouble and "have" to put off repairs, raise rents, and generally fuck their tenants even harder when they get into cash flow trouble.
all of it serving to push housing further out of reach, make it worse, and get already rich people paid more and more of soing less.