RE
Everest Re Group, Ltd.
stock NYSE

Syrup RE -TARIFFED up  again

I grew up a lower class surf bum, ditched my stoner gang in my twenties, started working hard and saving, got lucky and wealthy at 34
Still look like surf bum. Most of my clothes have paint on them and I only wear flip flops. Daily drive an old pickup truck
Get $100,000 to $120,000k a month or so in passive income from RE, dividends and interest paid from core position
No one asks me for anything but if i feel like being generous i can be

Renting out a thing, bought with a loan collateralized by the thing....in and of itself, that's not h reasonable.
Rental RE, industrial equipment, commercial RE...almost any capital intensive operations business looks like that

The ratio between you and OP is so massive but it goes to show that folks aren't looking at it rationally even if your post is.
Folks feel entitled to affordable housing and have been so sold the idea of a home/family (not too different than how they were sold the idea that racking up $250K debt for a English+Euro Art History double major might secure them a $200K job as an art museum director).
But reality is that Bay Area RE is correctly priced. It's high prices have PRICED IN the fact that the US innovation is still centered around there or that newly minted tech millionaires will still want to live there.
There is no SFH housing bubble nor will there be a crash in the Bay Area, SF, California, nor in the USA. Just like how there is no bubble in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris, or Washington DC. There are [cheap homes in California](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/18540-Soledad-Canyon-Rd-SPC-53-Canyon-Country-CA-91351/136689225_zpid/) and even cheaper homes elsewhere in the USA. [3bed/2bath/10,000SqFtLot 20mins from DT Detroit](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/29156-Coolidge-St-Roseville-MI-48066/83599279_zpid/) But folks don't want homes THERE. They want SFHomes in SPECIFIC places, at SPECIFIC prices, and at SPECIFIC sizes with SPECIFIC features while NOT paying a SPECIFIC price (that sounds like a SPECIFIC them problem no?)
As for housing in the US? Pretty great compared to the 100yr+ leases Chinese folks have to take to buy apartments they don't even own in China, Tokyo/HK/Singapore/SKorea where they do own but pay just as much if not more for apartment boxes with no land under it, NZ/AU/CA/UK with their hot RE markets that DO NOT have a 30yr mortgage available, etcetcetc.
I will caveat to say that NIMBY bs needs to tone down, more housing needs to be built, and PE/PC firms need to stay the fuck out of SFH market PLUS individual ownership needs to recategorized so [individual rich cunts don't abuse the system either](https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/vdokhk/the_big_short_2_trailer_just_dropped/) even if they say they are "mom & pop". But building more apartments, condos, and ADUs will relieve rental prices (as they should) they there is only so much land and folks want to live in specific places.
Tl;dr High-end SFH RE ain't blowing up even if folks hope for it and feel entitled to it because there is only so much land. Might as well assume you're entitle to $5k/yr Harvard STEM programs, 10/10 IG baddies paying for your dates before sleeping with you, Rembrandt paintings auctioned to you at $1K a pop, SPY $69 because it was there in 2008, etcetcetc.

Syrup RE -TARIFFED up  again

I grew up a lower class surf bum, ditched my stoner gang in my twenties, started working hard and saving, got lucky and wealthy at 34
Still look like surf bum. Most of my clothes have paint on them and I only wear flip flops. Daily drive an old pickup truck
Get $100,000 to $120,000k a month or so in passive income from RE, dividends and interest paid from core position
No one asks me for anything but if i feel like being generous i can be

Renting out a thing, bought with a loan collateralized by the thing....in and of itself, that's not h reasonable.
Rental RE, industrial equipment, commercial RE...almost any capital intensive operations business looks like that

The ratio between you and OP is so massive but it goes to show that folks aren't looking at it rationally even if your post is.
Folks feel entitled to affordable housing and have been so sold the idea of a home/family (not too different than how they were sold the idea that racking up $250K debt for a English+Euro Art History double major might secure them a $200K job as an art museum director).
But reality is that Bay Area RE is correctly priced. It's high prices have PRICED IN the fact that the US innovation is still centered around there or that newly minted tech millionaires will still want to live there.
There is no SFH housing bubble nor will there be a crash in the Bay Area, SF, California, nor in the USA. Just like how there is no bubble in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris, or Washington DC. There are [cheap homes in California](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/18540-Soledad-Canyon-Rd-SPC-53-Canyon-Country-CA-91351/136689225_zpid/) and even cheaper homes elsewhere in the USA. [3bed/2bath/10,000SqFtLot 20mins from DT Detroit](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/29156-Coolidge-St-Roseville-MI-48066/83599279_zpid/) But folks don't want homes THERE. They want SFHomes in SPECIFIC places, at SPECIFIC prices, and at SPECIFIC sizes with SPECIFIC features while NOT paying a SPECIFIC price (that sounds like a SPECIFIC them problem no?)
As for housing in the US? Pretty great compared to the 100yr+ leases Chinese folks have to take to buy apartments they don't even own in China, Tokyo/HK/Singapore/SKorea where they do own but pay just as much if not more for apartment boxes with no land under it, NZ/AU/CA/UK with their hot RE markets that DO NOT have a 30yr mortgage available, etcetcetc.
I will caveat to say that NIMBY bs needs to tone down, more housing needs to be built, and PE/PC firms need to stay the fuck out of SFH market PLUS individual ownership needs to recategorized so [individual rich cunts don't abuse the system either](https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/vdokhk/the_big_short_2_trailer_just_dropped/) even if they say they are "mom & pop". But building more apartments, condos, and ADUs will relieve rental prices (as they should) they there is only so much land and folks want to live in specific places.
Tl;dr High-end SFH RE ain't blowing up even if folks hope for it and feel entitled to it because there is only so much land. Might as well assume you're entitle to $5k/yr Harvard STEM programs, 10/10 IG baddies paying for your dates before sleeping with you, Rembrandt paintings auctioned to you at $1K a pop, SPY $69 because it was there in 2008, etcetcetc.

I still need to get Dark Souls 3 and Elden ring.
Oh and RE 4 remake and Requiem and Silent Hill remake. And and and
This is going to be like how anytime they start threatening to ban guns sales of guns and ammo shoot through the roof haha
It should make the stock go higher because sales will go higher.
I’m pretty sure it won’t though because ya know, the crime

I'm aware but the difference is 1 or 2% of the overall portfolio versus putting an additional 10-15% of my RE $ into this sector. If there is a sub-sector specific way to avoid it, then I prefer that choice.

I can speak for the real estate part.
Finding a good RE investment can be an incredibly safe investment. Buying a property at 80% of market value is an immediate cushion that stocks/funds cannot match. Further, if the RE owner can force appreciation of the asset by improving the asset's income and/or reduce its expenses, that can create huge CoC returns. Forced appreciation is not a function of funds and stocks.

Real Estate Investment Trust. All of S&P 500's RE stocks are REITs.

Yes, but there's no wash sale rule for gains, only losses.
If you have low/no earned income then you can realize a fairly large amount of gains cheaply every year. Then in a down year you can harvest the loss to offset gains elsewhere (say RE or some other less liquid asset that would have a larger gain than you could normally easily harvest). Any excess losses can be carried over for a few years to offset the next rush for the bull run.
At 8+ digits tax optimization represents a non-trivial sum of money.

I will tackle the last part as I’ve worked in hnw asset management for my whole career. Would the VTI and chill give them the highest total return? Probably. Is that the clients objective? Rarely at the hnw level. Someone with $10-$15 million more than likely is passing assets down to heirs through trusts, which extends the time horizon beyond 100+ years. Allowing the inclusion of less liquid assets like RE and Private stuff. The goal here is to capture that illiquidity premium and what other additional premium for locking money up over that time frame. Short answer, the hnw folks don’t need 7% for 45 years they need 5% into perpetuity and someone gets sued if not. Different game.

There's a $3000 price target on SanDisk? WOW THAT MUST BE A SURE THING. WE'RE ALL GONNA BE RICH

Most bogleheads, based on what folks post here and the forums, are 401K millionaires in the 7 and not 8 figure range. 401Ks don’t do private equity.
BH’s often don’t do a lot of rental RE but some/many will.
At the $10M range you don’t get offered decent pe deals…just warmed over leftovers that the big boys have passed on…the returns IMHO aren’t worth the illiquidity…but it does make some folks feel richer than they are.
The BH path of having a decent job, living beneath your means to save and invest into low cost, diversified index funds does generate a lot of HNWI ($1-5M) but fewer VHNWI ($5-$30M)…those that get to 8 figures from salary + index funds are generally those with 1% salaries from tech, big law etc with a mid six figure TC.
The path to VHNWI and UHNWI seems to be more entrepreneurial with an 8 figure cash exit and they often have a higher risk tolerance and desire for fancy products.

1) Having a lot of money doesn’t automatically make you better at managing it. There are \*lots\* of HNWIs who are terrible at basic personal finance, let alone investment.
2) Simple isn’t the same as easy. Investing in broad-based, passive index funds is simple. It isn’t easy and lots of people pay for the feeling of security that having a “pro” manage their money gives them, even if the results are provably worse on average than using a simple three fund portfolio.
3) The Boglehead philosophy works for any income level and it’s as close to a guaranteed result as possible; over time you can expect to achieve a reasonable level of wealth relative to your retirement needs. It’s \*not\* a way to reliably get obscenely rich and while it can accomplish that in specific cases, especially when there’s an extended bull market, that’s generally only if you don’t retire early. While it’s not a core component of the philosophy, this sub shares a lot of members with FI/RE subs, so there’s going to be a bit of a bias towards time over money once you have “enough.”
4) Those Bogleheads who do have exceptionally large portfolios just won’t be on your radar. I’m not sharing my overall financial picture with a commercial bank. I might move a lot of money through my checking account over time, but the average balance is a fraction of a percent of my investments. I doubt any of the older Bogleheads who attend my local chapter, at least one of whom I’m pretty sure has 10MM+, share with their banks either (whether out of privacy concerns or just a desire not to deal with sales pressure).

Hmm, with current rates, investing in RE doesn't make sense. Rents don't cover the mortgage, then you have capital expenditures......things break down in a home. I've never gotten a call to fix a problem from VTSAX.