You want to get the benefits of hard work without the hard work or time.
You can't lift for 3 months, read a bunch of shit and try and sell a fitness product.
You need to look the part.
That means you have to put in the work and the time.
Great start, but you don't even look like you lift weights at all.
In 5 years you could have something.
Your guide isn't bad, but until you look the part and have actually seen what it takes to develop a real physique, you can talk about the theoretical, but not the practical.
If you had bothered to actually read the guide, you would have learned that it was not written for the tiny fraction of the population that wants to get super-muscular, but the far larger number of people who would like to gain a moderate amount of muscle.
LOL. Just LOL.
I hate to be negative. But look at author. Look at his pictures.
He's got no clue what it really takes or what he is taking about.
Not bad advice, but not great.
I've spent 20 years building my physique (http://YouTube.com/simpleprogrammer) and I can tell you that no one has it "figured out."
I have learned one thing for sure though. Never trust someone who doesn't look much better than you do.
The biggest problem is when people using anabolic steroids give advise without disclaiming that they're not natural. The two simply do not go together. Naturals do not train the same as steroid users. They cannot recover as fast. They cannot do such high volume work. They need to get stronger to get bigger. Most of the bro science revolves around some brosplit that hits 1 body part once a week and at some ridiculous volume.
"Let me try this same training routine as someone on steroids and wonder why I can't make progress because the only thing increasing is my cortisone levels"
So, I thought I'd type up a bit of more detailed explanation of my story and why I think real estate is a great investment for software developers, since my previous comment was a little lacked.
I bought my first house when I was 19.
It's a little two bedroom shack in Boise, Idaho, which I bought in 1999 for $68,000.
I still have that little shack. Today it's worth about $135,000 and the tenants I had in it essentially paid the mortgage on it and I own it free and clear.
I've actually got 26 total rental units and I generate about $10k a month of almost completely passive income off of them, net.
I made a ton of mistakes along the way, but I learned quite a bit--which I'm happy to share.
Over the years, I tried to buy one property every year.
At first I could only afford small properties and would put 10% down, so I was a bit leveraged.
But, eventually I was able to afford bigger properties and put more money down.
I always bought properties using 30 fixed loans and that ended up working out well.
I watched in horror as many of the other investors I knew--who were really speculators--went under, during the big housing crash.
I actually thrived during this time, picking up properties for cheap.
All the time I was working as a software developer, I had this goal of retiring early.
I kept saving as much as I could and investing real estate... little by little.
Like I said, I made mistakes, but learned from them and got smarter as I got more experienced.
Eventually, I had built up enough cash flow to actually "retire." This happened a few years ago.
Why is real estate such a good investment?
Well, I think there are two main factors: leverage and hedging against inflation.
Leverage is extremely powerful.
A bank will lend you a large amount of money, sometimes 90% or more, for you to invest--if you buy real estate.
This isn't the case with other investments.
So, you can buy a house for $100k, put $10k of your own money into it and if it goes up 10%, and is worth $110k, you make 100% return on your $10k.
That's insane. I don't know other investments where that is possible with such low risk--if you mitigate the risk properly.
Now, I don't depend on appreciation--and you can't count on it--but, you don't even need it.
Just the cash flow alone can get you excellent returns on your money. Again, with little risk and huge upsides.
Hedging against inflation is also a beautiful part of real estate investment.
Most other investments are hurt by inflation, real estate isn't.
In fact, if you owe money on a mortgage and inflation hits, you actually owe less.
Home values go up with inflation, as do rents.
I know it's a bit difficult to believe--I probably wouldn't if I hadn't done it myself--but, I have done it and I did escape the rat race.
Anyway, if you'd like to know more, let me know and I'll post the link to my YouTube videos and the video course (that is in beta) that I am releasing on specifically real estate investment for software developers.
a) leverage cuts you both ways. Great when the market goes up, terrible when it goes down (particularly with a Loan-to-Value ratio of 90%).
a') futures or broker margin trading give you leverage in other markets, too. Doesn't mean it's prudent.
b) much harder to diversify, because of the big chunks (you can buy shares for 5k, but not a house. You can sprinkle 100k into different equity/debt markets in different countries, but not into many houses in different countries).
c) massive transaction costs. Round trip can be 10% or more.
d) much less liquidity. If shit hits the fan, you can sell shares and have cash at hand in a few days. Try that with a house.
f) again, regarding diversification: you could get bad tenants that trash the place and/or don't pay rent. If you own a large number of properties, it's a quantity you can average over and deal with. If not, it's a gamble.
g) rates are pretty much as low as they can go (though, to be fair, everyone's been saying that for some 7+ years now...) but seriously, they'll have to come up. That would put pressure on real estate prices. (Of course, you can avoid liquidity issues with fixed rate mortgages, that's prudent, as long as rents hold up).
h) inflation has not really been an issue for several decades. It is prudent to keep it in mind, though, but clearly real estate is not the only real asset.
i) Lastly, there might be something of "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller" to it. I have no doubt that what you are saying is accurate - but you might have been lucky, and avoided a massive downside. And clearly, it is not a feasible strategy for everyone to own 26 properties and rent them out (because someone actually has to live in them and pay rent...)
a) leverage cuts you both ways. Great when the market goes up, terrible when it goes down (particularly with a Loan-to-Value ratio of 90%).
Not exactly. Only if you sell.
My strategy is to buy and hold--pretty much forever.
I get to get the leverage benefit and flip something if there is an opportunity and if not it's still a great cash flow deal to hold onto.
I also get to have depreciation which I never pay back.
I get what you are saying, but when you invest in real estate properly--not speculate--it's about cashflow, not appreciation.
Appreciation is a bonus you sometimes get but don't rely on.
Over a long period of time--say 20-30 years--you'll get appreciation in almost all cases, but never count on it for the short term.
a') futures or broker margin trading give you leverage in other markets, too. Doesn't mean it's prudent.
Yes. Different kind of leverage though.
Risk in real estate is essentially capped. It's like having a hedge in options or futures trading.
BTW, I've done both. I've traded all kinds of complex spreads. Real estate is much better--trust me.
b) much harder to diversify, because of the big chunks (you can buy shares for 5k, but not a house. You can sprinkle 100k into different equity/debt markets in different countries, but not into many houses in different countries).
Yes, but also less critical if you are talking about cash flow and in it for the long haul.
I am diversified over 26 rental property units in two spots in the country.
Yes, really bad things could happen, but it's very unlikely.
There will always be some risk.
c) massive transaction costs. Round trip can be 10% or more.
Yes. Definitely.
That is why buy and hold. Flippers get stuck holding the bag.
Really good point though. People need to understand this when investing in real estate.
d) much less liquidity. If shit hits the fan, you can sell shares and have cash at hand in a few days. Try that with a house.
Yes, another great point.
You need to have cash reserves if you invest in real estate. Don't lose all your liquidity and get in a squeeze.
I keep plenty of cash on hand or in a more liquid investment for emergencies.
Great point.
f) again, regarding diversification: you could get bad tenants that trash the place and/or don't pay rent. If you own a large number of properties, it's a quantity you can average over and deal with. If not, it's a gamble.
True again, but this can be highly mitigated with skill and volume.
I've been holding properties for about 18 years. I have not had more than $4k of damage done at once.
And there are remedies.
Mostly this is a non-issue.
Don't buy expensive interiors. Buy middle-end and mitigate possible damage.
Another really good point though.
g) rates are pretty much as low as they can go (though, to be fair, everyone's been saying that for some 7+ years now...) but seriously, they'll have to come up. That would put pressure on real estate prices. (Of course, you can avoid liquidity issues with fixed rate mortgages, that's prudent, as long as rents hold up).
Yes and no. Could actually go lower. I don't think it will.
Most likely they will go up.
Never in history been a better time to buy in my opinion.
Don't know if we'll see rates this low ever again.
Again, I don't care about prices. I care about cashflow.
h) inflation has not really been an issue for several decades. It is prudent to keep it in mind, though, but clearly real estate is not the only real asset.
True, but when rates go up. It will be.
And when it does if you get caught with your pants down, it hurts really, really bad.
i) Lastly, there might be something of "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller" to it. I have no doubt that what you are saying is accurate - but you might have been lucky, and avoided a massive downside. And clearly, it is not a feasible strategy for everyone to own 26 properties and rent them out (because someone actually has to live in them and pay rent...)
Not everyone can do it, not everyone will.
But there is a huge opportunity here.
I've survived the good and bad. Solid strategy will give good results with minimal risk.
Most real estate investors don't have solid strategy.
Sensible answers, thanks. With those caveats in place, what you say makes a lot of sense. Particularly like the focus on buy-and-hold and investment, as opposed to flipping and speculation.
A few more things come to mind:
1) cash reserves - need enough to cover emergencies and periods where you don't receive rent, for one reason or the other, particularly of you happen to be underwater.
2) demographic changes can still screw things up. As an extreme example, take villages in eastern Germany or Spain - both prices and rents have been falling.
3) however, if approached carefully, this sounds good - maybe too good. There is no free lunch! So, what's the catch? Normally, if you have this good an opportunity, you have either hidden risks or restricted access. Do most people not get the initial money (or cojones) together to pull the trigger?
The catch in, IMO, is that you need the right knowledge to pull it off. It's not as easy as it looks and it does take some cojones--like you said.
Most people say, "sounds like a good idea" and never do anything.
There are very few people who will teach you how to do it without ripping you off and selling you some scam.
Honestly, that is why I put my course together.
Yes, it's $500. But if you actually follow the advice, it's dirt cheap and I'm not selling you a bunch of get rich quick BS, like most real estate "scammy" stuff.
You also need to be able to afford a down payment and still have a reasonable cash reserve. That there pretty much puts the majority of the population out of play.
Yes, it puts a large number of people out of play--but not software developers.
That's why I recommend it to them.
You can find deals for $100k where you put down $10-$20k. Which is a lot of money, yes, but I know it's possible, because I saved that much in a year as a SW dev.
And then you can have cash reserves of $5k or so (which could be 401k or something else.)
This sounds interesting, but does managing and keeping up 26 rental units really count as "passive income"? It sounds kind of like a nightmare to me, unless you've completely outsourced that part to a property maintenance company. I guess the question is: how much time, or alternatively, what fraction of the income, goes to running it?
So it sounds like you pay someone to manage your properties? How were you able to find a good trustworthy people? What does it do to your profits?
Also, how do you deal with major expenses, like if a furnace needs to be replaced, or roof damage? Do you maintain a rainy day fund for this? What kind of average expenses do you see for your properties over time?
I think I read one of your articles discussing this before I bought my home, and it helped convince me to pull the trigger. I was renting one unit in a duplex, when my landlord put the building on the market. After some months, the price he was asking came down into the range where I could make a play for it, and I did. With a software developer's income, I had no trouble getting approved for a mortgage, and was able to take advantage of FHA incentives to get a low interest, low down-payment loan that I scraped together a down payment for by tightening my belt for a few months. Best decision I ever made.
Since it is a duplex, I've been able to rent out the other unit, and the rent on a big, 2BR apartment in this market is enough that it more than pays the mortgage, leaving me to just pay the property taxes.
BTW, would love to hear more about your success. Email me at john@simpleprogrammer.com if you get a chance and I'll be happy to give you some free advice in exchange for hearing more of your story.
Have you looked into commercial real estate at all? One of the factors that scares me off from residential real estate is that one bad tenant can really screw me over, especially as I'm just getting started. It intuitively seems like if you can get a business to pay rent on a property instead you're less likely to have a disaster situation...
Congrats! This is awesome. I would be interested in hearing more about where you got financing (traditional bank/mortgage lender or other) and what locations you purchased your properties in.
Cool, my own anecdata matches yours. I also tend to have a daily fast until well into sundown, consuming only fresh ginger tea with lemon during the sunlit hours. Albeit sometimes if I'm truly famished I will eat something light (banana, baby carrots, etc) but it doesn't happen often. Been basically doing this pattern for 2+ years, and I definitely notice my mind staying clearer during the fast, and I am in the best physical condition of my life, running faster times and lifting heavier weights than ever. Those interested should check out "the warrior diet", which seems to suggest following a similar feeding routine.
Interesting seeing this, I recently was at a life balance seminar for work where they tried to encourage people to eat more often through the day. They discouraged going without food for a while and cited that sumo-wrestlers would use a technique of only eating at night in order to gain their massive amounts of weight.
Different strokes for different blokes. What may work for some may not work others. I never thought about getting into sumo wrestling (although, never ruled it out either). Rather than heeding the advice of 'eat-more!' Or 'eat-less!' I'd recommend just do trial and error and evaluate what works best for you individually over time. I didn't always follow this lifestyle, just gradually iterated into it after a great deal of introspection to see what works for me at the current moment. To that end, I have found regular fasting to be an important part of the balance.
>sumo-wrestlers would use a technique of only eating at night in order to gain their massive amounts of weight.
It's worth pointing out that the typical 'gains' diet for a sumo-wrestler contains dishes that are optimized to pack absurd amounts of calories into a meal. This is stuff that nobody outside that particular culture would generally eat.
I'd ask you the same question I asked jsonmez2--what does a typical meal look like? Do you find you're able to get everything you need in one meal? Any other tips?
I find it interesting that this is the traditional Buddhist monk meal plan, eat once a day, although it's lunch rather than dinner. There are several reasons for it that are all aimed at keeping monks' minds focused on their job which is practicing the Dhamma. One of those reasons is to limit energy intake so that monks don't have a lot of physical energy to get them into trouble thinking about things monks shouldn't be thinking about. So it's curious how you can maintain high energy levels and keep yourself ripped eating that way.
There are some cultural adaptations of the monk meal plan. Monks in some countries even eat three full meals per day due to the diet they follow. I'm referring to the traditional meal plan of one meal per day at lunch.
I really don't understand the mentality that eating and/or cooking is a "waste of time". Not picking on you specifically it is a common idea and part of the idea behind products like Soylent. I prefer to enjoy the moments of preparing my food and eating it.
> I really don't understand the mentality that eating and/or cooking is a "waste of time". Not picking on you specifically it is a common idea and part of the idea behind products like Soylent. I prefer to enjoy the moments of preparing my food and eating it.
I think it's best summed up as "people enjoy different things."
An example for you: I'm a cyclist. I love to assemble and work on my bikes, because I derive enjoyment from the process of working on the things I will use. This is incredibly similar conceptually to a cook who enjoys cooking their meals; it's not a "waste" of time for either of us, because in each case we derive satisfaction from the act of working on the thing we will eventually enjoy.
I also really enjoy eating (good) food. And so you might think that I would share the same interest in food preparation that I have in bicycle maintenance, but I absolutely do not. I cannot stand cooking, for reasons that I could not really articulate. It simply does not quite manage to tickle the right parts of my brain.
Left to my own devices I'd probably subsist mostly on "good enough" food that requires little or no preparation (such as nuts and fruit). I understand Soylent from this perspective, and the intermittent fasting / one meal a day thing makes a great deal of sense to me as well.
I think it just comes down to frequency, "necessity" of an activity, and context.
Someone might like driving, but are they going to enjoy driving to and from a work environment every day of the week? Perhaps. They might enjoy it so much that they love it. And the work might make it worthwhile. But making that thing a requirement seems like an easy way to transform it into something that's just not as fun as go-where-you-want-when-you-want free drive.
I think it just comes down to whether or not you you're forced into doing something as a means to an end. Cooking for subsistence rather than for pleasure, for example.
If dishes cleaned themselves I would cook more. I don't mind cooking but I hate having to clean dishes so I avoid cooking anything that dirties more than two dishes.
Cooking leaves me with two options:
1) Clean immediately after preparing my meal. Food is now cold and unenjoyable, but dishes are done!
2) Put off cleaning dishes until after my meal and food has settled so I can actually enjoy my food and the result of my labor. Food is now stuck to the pots/pans and things need to be scrubbed rather than rinsed. God help me if it was oatmeal I had forgotten about for 30~ minutes. That stuff turns into glue!
So I buy Soylent. I prepare it when I get home. I give the blender a quick rinse and I'm done. Since it is better cold than warm I can put it in the fridge and forget about it until I'm hungry.
If you're going to bother filling each cooking utensil with water you're better off giving them a quick rinse with a spray faucet. As it's faster to spray each utensil than to fill each container. Your "simple" method is a worse version of method 1 and doesn't actually solve the problem.
I handwashed dishes for 9 years. I also cooked dinner for the family (my mother and three sisters, stepfather was usually still at work) daily. I was also left with the dishes (as we did not have a mechanical dishwasher).
Not liking to cook has fuck all to do with not knowing how to cook. People who make that assumption and then are judgmental about people who dislike to cook piss me off. My issue is not that I've never cooked in my life or that I don't cook.
Sure, I could solve this by getting frozen lasagna and baking it for an hour ten. Absolutely no cleaning involved there! But that isn't cooking so much as preparing a pre-made meal.
What's something you don't like doing so I can judge and belittle you for it?
I understand that some folks don't like dishwashing. Just countering the hyperbole that gets thrown around. I too washed dishes for a decade. I didn't end up resentful and angry.
i'm a food guy, but i only really "enjoy" cooking on the weekends when i can take hours to do it, or try totally new things without having worked all day (more energy and mental horsepower to dedicated to it).
for example 80% of my weekdays are: 2 eggs s.s.u. in the morning for breakfast. chicken leg and vegetable seared and roasted for 30 mins. in cast iron and a basic salad for dinner. lunch is the same 5 or 6 restaurants that i know are cheap fast and healthy around my office, or i skip if i'm too busy.
i do fast occasionally when i've overeaten as part of my weight management strategy. i think the main reason i couldn't fast at lunch is social/habitual. also, friday team lunches are more elaborate.
Don't forget the cultural aspects. Cultures like the French or Italian enjoy more their food moments. In their ultra efficient society, the Americans — generalization warning! — don't think is really an important social moment. No mystery that Soylent is an American thing.
Same here. During the week at work, I drink water and/or tea or coffee with the occasional blob of coconut oil during the day (not technically fasting). I work out in the mornings and have a plentiful meal around 18:00 in the evening.
On weekends I tend to eat a big breakfast and small dinner instead.
I prefer to eat at home in a relaxing environment, where I can enjoy the food. Eating at work just isn't something I can enjoy.
This has been working for me for well over a year. YMMV, of course.
I agree that with one meal a day you likely don't need to count calories. Then again, I can easily consume 5000 calories of more if left unchecked. So I built my own IF-specific tracker (shameless plug).
What does a general meal look like for you? I want to get into this kind of eating schedule--it really fits my lifestyle and routine--but I'm concerned about being able to get the calories and nutrients I need from just a single meal. Any other tips?
