Warren Buffet (a man who knows a thing or two about good returns) urges people to invest in themselves first.
Seems like good advice.
Seems like good advice.
"Don't do as succesful people say. Instead do as successful people do."
I would regard anything that generates cash flow as a productive asset (and that's probably what Buffet's thinking, too). Unlike gold, for example, which just lies around.
> this seems to suggest that, leaving outliers aside, investing in a house is a better investment than a company. A good investment is about risk as well as return, and it is not easy for the average Joe to build a well diversified real estate portfolio.
And shares tend to not require maintenance unlike real estate. But unlike real estate, shares can disappear if many companies tank. But land you own won't ever disappear unless war or catastrophic natural disasters happen.
Your share of General Electric is 1 in 8.7 billion. For reference the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot is 1 in 292 million.
And that's not even considering the companies where management issues themselves a different class of stock with 10x the voting rights.
As for management giving themselves 10x voting rights - that doesn't just happen out of the blue. If a large portion of the shareholders decide that it's the right thing to do (by voting), then yes, it can happen. But i highly doubt that a majority shareholder would vote themselves out of control. It's quite likely that the founder is doing this to retain control despite offering to create more shares. The new buyers of said share knows this, and tacitly agree as indicated by their purchase of said share.
Real estate sucks. Well, being a landlord sucks. Land can drop in value, sometimes remarkably--look at Detroit, Northern Indiana, Baltimore. Lots of places.