Investment Options ?

[bigdog]

I'm looking for investment options in today's crazy times....

Stock market - Forget It !
Bonds - Nope !
Gold & Precious Metals - Can't take a gold bar to Wal-Mart or Hannaford
Annuities - Long term, and big penalties if withdrawn before maturity

Which leaves real estate ! Not interested in residential housing or commercial.
I'm thinking of residential land, because God's not making anymore
I realize that land is not really liquid asset, but in today's market, it could turn-over in a reasonable time-frame if I needed to cash-out. By reasonable time-frame, I mean within 6-12 months.

My money is losing money just sitting in the bank, and with the expectation that inflation will most likely be with us for the next several years, I figure real estate is my best bet to hedge against the eroding dollar and interest rates.

No plans to rush into purchasing, but if the opportunity rises you have to strike when the iron is hot !

This said, what towns' around the lake are most appealing for investment opportunities ?

[winterh]

Bitcoin.
Ethereum.
Assorted alt coins

[FlyingScot]

I won't presume to tell you how to invest, but one gigantic difference between real estate as you describe it, and a typical buy and hold portfolio of equity and debt index funds from someplace like Vanguard or Fidelity, is that the real estate requires a huge amount of work. It's as much a hobby or part time job as it is an investment. This could be a plus or a minus, depending on your interests

[Winnisquamer]

Originally Posted by winterh

Bitcoin.
Ethereum.
Assorted alt coins

This guy/gal gets it…. Tons of money to be made

[joey2665]

Investing is an extremely personal subject. People have different levels of security and risk and age also is a major factor. Taking into account all these factors plus the economy the best plan is usually a balanced and diverse portfolio which will help you weather the fluctuations of the economy. A little is the market a little in bonds and a little in real estate plus always keep an acceptable level of cash liquid.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Winnisquamer

This guy/gal gets it…. Tons of money to be made

Not according to Jamie Dimon:

"Say what you want about JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, but he's consistent about his disdain for bitcoin.

Dimon once again attacked the top cryptocurrency, calling it "worthless" during a virtual summit Monday.
"I personally think bitcoin is worthless, but I don't want to be a spokesperson," he said during a virtual appearance at the Institute of International Finance Meeting before adding, "I don't care, it makes no difference to me. I don't think people should smoke cigarettes."

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I won't presume to tell you how to invest, but one gigantic difference between real estate as you describe it, and a typical buy and hold portfolio of equity and debt index funds from someplace like Vanguard or Fidelity, is that the real estate requires a huge amount of work. It's as much a hobby or part time job as it is an investment. This could be a plus or a minus, depending on your interests

Quite a bit worse. Unlike a REIT that has a portfolio with some diversified risk, a single property - raw land - has heavy acquisition costs, liquidation costs, and heavy carrying costs.

[Descant]

Unless you have enough land to hunt, snowmobile, or harvest, land is pretty boring. I think I'd rather see something that lets me have fun with my grandchildren. A collection of pinball machines, for example. Or maybe a nice triple cockpit antique speedboat? Antique or classic cars can be fun and profitable.
There are real estate projects that give better leverage than vacant land and generate some cash flow too. I have a friend who has done well with self storage--No tenant has ever called with a plumbing problem on a weekend or holiday. Same with boat slips--prices and rents are still climbing, and tenants don't call with problems. Rents are paid annually, (at least at MVYC) so no problem with late payers.

Have fun.

Old standbys: collectible art, oriental rugs, jewelry, Race/stud horses.

[mswlogo]

Land is probably one if the riskiest things.
Stock market, investing conservatively, is a pretty good bet.

Descant, good point about self storage. Big money in that.

[Winnisquamer]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Not according to Jamie Dimon:

"Say what you want about JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, but he's consistent about his disdain for bitcoin.

Dimon once again attacked the top cryptocurrency, calling it "worthless" during a virtual summit Monday.
"I personally think bitcoin is worthless, but I don't want to be a spokesperson," he said during a virtual appearance at the Institute of International Finance Meeting before adding, "I don't care, it makes no difference to me. I don't think people should smoke cigarettes."

I would say that if I was their biggest competitor also with the intent of Bitcoin to put them out of business… one thing that’s undeniable is that people have made money off of it. alot of money. My self included. Invest how you feel is safe but don’t overlook this space to park some cash.

[BroadHopper]

That's a loaded question. I good financial advisor that is independent of any investment firm is a good start. Try your bank or credit union.

Check to see if there is a local investment club. Usually, a bunch of people pool together their resources and form a nice portfolio that changes as the market indicates. There has been a lot of success!

As for me, I have been extremely lucky to invest in defense contracts stocks. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. Great dividend yield as well as long-term growth.

For the short term, the last niche was cannabis stocks. That was a wild but fun ride. I switch all stocks to cannabis ETF until I find another growth opportunity.

As for land, high upfront cost, unless you sit on it for a loooong time. Consider REIT, but it is risky.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by Winnisquamer

I would say that if I was their biggest competitor also with the intent of Bitcoin to put them out of business… one thing that’s undeniable is that people have made money off of it. alot of money. My self included. Invest how you feel is safe but don’t overlook this space to park some cash.

Note, there is no sound

https://youtu.be/E7KQwBWJ7i0

[rsmlp]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Quite a bit worse. Unlike a REIT that has a portfolio with some diversified risk, a single property - raw land - has heavy acquisition costs, liquidation costs, and heavy carrying costs.

IMHO, land is a terrible choice. carrying costs and lack of liquidity make it a nonstarter. you discount stocks out of hand and I don't know why. over the long run, stock index funds are tough to beat and completely liquid with essentially zero cost as vanguard has index funds with mgmt fees under .1%. SWTSX is vanguard's total market index and is a good place to start. obviously no assurances can be made but given the choices it's probably the most logical.

oh and crypto is a complete casino. good luck with that in ten years.

[baygo]

Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. It’s also very important to recognize cycles when making a decision. Real estate values are at a peak right now, And like you said about gold you cannot take a piece of real estate to Walmart.

Cryptocurrency is extremely volatile and with so many new ones coming up on a daily basis very risky. It’s Fiat currency!!! There has never been a fiat currency survive through time.

Do you hope to make money with your investment or hope to preserve capital? I like silver. 10oz bullion bars. It’s a tangible asset, and an industrial metal, so there will always be demand. I will always accept them in exchange for A bottle of booze or a bar tab

[garysanfran]

Land creates no cash flow...And you'll have to pay a yearly tax.

Your first step is to do a self-analysis on your tolerance for risk. What is your time frame? Time is extremely important.

Look at the historical return of any investment over time.

Diversity and time are key.

When I first moved to San Fran, I went to an open house in Pacific Heights...An incredible mansion for sale for $125,000. I was making $600/month and thought I'd never be able to buy real estate there....Every real estate "bubble" has historically fell by the wayside (factoring time) as values continue to rise. Today that house would sell for around $10 million.

Is there an R.E. bubble today? Probably, but what about the factor of time?

Stock market?...Look at a time table...

On December 1, 1984 the S&P 500 was 181.14. Today it's at 4,363.33.

I tend to be a contrarian when I invest. I don't buy stock when everyone else is buying, I buy when it's being sold off.

I bought an apartment building in San Fran when interest rates were "floating" at 18% in 1981 and no one was buying. Best investment I could have made at age 30.

[MAXUM]

A good well diversified portfolio, a steady hand in not making rash or large moves based on market conditions, plus time is the key to success. Simple as that. Disciplined investors are rewarded. Everyone else that does exotic investments and chase trends take huge risks. Sometimes it works, often times it doesn't.

[LikeLakes]

As so many above have echoed, land would be a really poor choice for what you described. You quickly say you don't want residential or commercial real estate, but they are the best long term bet IMO if you wanted to put money into RE. I include boat slips or self storage or car washes in the commercial category, all are interesting investments.

Otherwise, like Broadhopper suggested, I'd recommend getting a well regarded investment adviser. They will listen to your needs, risk tolerance, look at your current asset mix, and advise accordingly.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

As so many above have echoed, land would be a really poor choice for what you described. You quickly say you don't want residential or commercial real estate, but they are the best long term bet IMO if you wanted to put money into RE. I include boat slips or self storage or car washes in the commercial category, all are interesting investments.

Otherwise, like Broadhopper suggested, I'd recommend getting a well regarded investment adviser. They will listen to your needs, risk tolerance, look at your current asset mix, and advise accordingly.

I absolutely agree with a well graded investment advisor. However I will try to stay away from the advisers employed by banks or credit unions as they tend to be very transient. I would recommend instead of going to a particular brokerage retaining in money manager. Money manager fees tend to be higher than brokerages but your returns are usually exponentially better


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Did I miss the answers? The OP asked about which towns might have good opportunities, and we all went off about why we don't like real estate. : suspect, without doing my own research, that if you get a town or two away from Winnipesaukee, there are some good opportunities to buy a parcel of say, 50-100 acres, take it through the sub division approval process and then sell to a developer. Still a lot of up front costs, but you don't pay the land use change tax until actually sold. You might be able to harvest. I'd look at the Barnsteads, which have, I think, nine lakes.

Realtor.com lists 25 acrss in Barnstead fore $165K and 127 acres in Belmont for $250K.

[Mr. V]

Why not "think locally" and invest in local projects, assuming you can find them?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by rsmlp

IMHO, land is a terrible choice. carrying costs and lack of liquidity make it a nonstarter. you discount stocks out of hand and I don't know why. over the long run, stock index funds are tough to beat and completely liquid with essentially zero cost as vanguard has index funds with mgmt fees under .1%. SWTSX is vanguard's total market index and is a good place to start. obviously no assurances can be made but given the choices it's probably the most logical.

oh and crypto is a complete casino. good luck with that in ten years.

Because the OP stated they were not looking in those directions.
They stated they were looking to real estate. REIT is the closest you can come in real estate to investing in a comparable stock or bond fund.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Because the OP stated they were not looking in those directions.
They stated they were looking to real estate. REIT is the closest you can come in real estate to investing in a comparable stock or bond fund.

Buying a PIECE of land is like buying a SINGLE Stock.

Google luck with that.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

Buying a PIECE of land is like buying a SINGLE Stock.

Google luck with that.

REIT isn't a single stock. It is a portfolio of properties... like buying a stock fund.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

REIT isn't a single stock. It is a portfolio of properties... like buying a stock fund.

I wasn’t referring to REIT’s, sorry my post wasn’t directed at the later part of your post.

REIT’s is a good suggestion.

[Shreddy]

I have a gorgeous piece of land in Moultonborough. Everything is for sale for the right price

[fatlazyless]

With your savings held in a .... https://www.mvsb.com/personal/deposit-rates/ .... personal deposit savings account your money is safe but you basically make little to NO INTEREST on your deposited savings money.

So, is best to keep the money in the bank and drive your car to 300,000-miles or longer, and buy all your clothes for $3.20/shirt at the https://www.stvdplaconia.org ...... Tuesday opening at 10-am is 30%-off for seniors, day! Plus, stay away from restaurants!

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Because the OP stated they were not looking in those directions.
They stated they were looking to real estate. REIT is the closest you can come in real estate to investing in a comparable stock or bond fund.

Nobody has discussed whether the land will be financed or bought out right. Typically, banks don’t like to finance land and if they do the LTV is low, maybe 50% to a well qualified buyer. As others have noted there is no cash flow but there are expenses such as real estate taxes and P&I payments. What is your desire OP?

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Nobody has discussed whether the land will be financed or bought out right. Typically, banks don’t like to finance land and if they do the LTV is low, maybe 50% to a well qualified buyer. As others have noted there is no cash flow but there are expenses such as real estate taxes and P&I payments. What is your desire OP?

I would think that a loan's interest would negate ROI unless keeping it for a lonnng time, especially given the currently elevated prices.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Nobody has discussed whether the land will be financed or bought out right. Typically, banks don’t like to finance land and if they do the LTV is low, maybe 50% to a well qualified buyer. As others have noted there is no cash flow but there are expenses such as real estate taxes and P&I payments. What is your desire OP?

The REIT would still be better. More diversified, lower carry costs, and lower acquisition costs.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

With your savings held in a .... https://www.mvsb.com/personal/deposit-rates/ .... personal deposit savings account your money is safe but you basically make little to NO INTEREST on your deposited savings money.

So, is best to keep the money in the bank and drive your car to 300,000-miles or longer, and buy all your clothes for $3.20/shirt at the https://www.stvdplaconia.org ...... Tuesday opening at 10-am is 30%-off for seniors, day! Plus, stay away from restaurants!

Walmart stock pays a nice dividend.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The REIT would still be better. More diversified, lower carry costs, and lower acquisition costs.

Only if you pay very close attention to the composition of the REIT. Anything that is heavily invested in "commercial" property I would be very scared of. Office and retail property is probably not a winner long term with online shopping and hybrid or full on remote working becoming more prevalent.

Holdings in that space are everything when assessing the overall risk vs reward.

[dickiej]

Foam noodle stock is always a wise investment.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The REIT would still be better. More diversified, lower carry costs, and lower acquisition costs.

REIT's are required to pay out 90% of income in dividends. In a bull market, this leaves little extra for investing in new properties and organic growth, so the per share value may suffer. The dividends may be a good part of a diversified portfolio, but an REIT overweight portfolio may not be a good idea. Actually as an aggressive but diversified investor, I can't think of anyplace I would put a majority of my money in a single type of investment, especially as the lead component. BUT, no risk, no reward. My father always told me to take risks early in life "because you can always make it back".

Different perspective: ~45 years ago my sister and BIL bought 600 acres. ASAP, they sold 400 and had minimal $$ exposure on the remaining 200 acres. Tree farmers. They moved onto the land from away 25 years ago. In future, my niece will inherit and plans to move here. To them, this was a great "investment". Maybe we all need to re-think "investment" and think about our grandchildren instead of ourselves.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Walmart stock pays a nice dividend.

If you look at a one year chart for WMT, it looks like it has done a double top and could be heading down from it's current price, so now is the time to go SHORT on WMT.

On the other hand, if it goes back up you can get stopped out and loose big ..... and be left with nothing except your old foam swim noodles ..... !!!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Descant

Different perspective: ~45 years ago my sister and BIL bought 600 acres. ASAP, they sold 400 and had minimal $$ exposure on the remaining 200 acres. Tree farmers. They moved onto the land from away 25 years ago. In future, my niece will inherit and plans to move here. To them, this was a great "investment". Maybe we all need to re-think "investment" and think about our grandchildren instead of ourselves.

If this property is in NH, one thing to be careful of is the long term holding of the property in question. Since NH lacks any broad based tax and relies solely on property taxes, this eventually will become a big problem for realestate investors. Especially those that are holding property in a reduced or tax deferred status, such as a tree farm or current use. It is no surprise that the pressure to develop and need to feed the insatiable appetite for local and state spending will put pressure on these programs to either reduce their advantage or simply get rid of them. It seems that there is a always something about these being discussed which if you read the tea leaves probably means it is not a matter of if but when that advantage is gone.

So from my point of view NH is for the most part a toxic place to invest in realestate due to the unpredictable carrying costs of property taxes. Not that it doesn't exist elsewhere but it is far more acute here that any oscillation in spending directly hits property owners and without regard to the impact of the person's ability to pay. Therefore many properties such as the one described even if owned outright may be lost for no other reason than the tax burden becomes to great. Of course nobody really cares that multigenerational properties are lost in this manner, only that there is somebody ready and willing to buy and take over the increased tax burden willingly. It is a sad but vicious cycle, but as they say, that is what they call "progress".

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

So from my point of view NH is for the most part a toxic place to invest in realestate due to the unpredictable carrying costs of property taxes. Not that it doesn't exist elsewhere but it is far more acute here that any oscillation in spending directly hits property owners and without regard to the impact of the person's ability to pay. Therefore many properties such as the one described even if owned outright may be lost for no other reason than the tax burden becomes to great. Of course nobody really cares that multigenerational properties are lost in this manner, only that there is somebody ready and willing to buy and take over the increased tax burden willingly. It is a sad but vicious cycle, but as they say, that is what they call "progress".

Bingo! Why the Walmart side of the lake will become another 'Miami'.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

If this property is in NH, one thing to be careful of is the long term holding of the property in question. Since NH lacks any broad based tax and relies solely on property taxes, this eventually will become a big problem for realestate investors. Especially those that are holding property in a reduced or tax deferred status, such as a tree farm or current use. It is no surprise that the pressure to develop and need to feed the insatiable appetite for local and state spending will put pressure on these programs to either reduce their advantage or simply get rid of them. It seems that there is a always something about these being discussed which if you read the tea leaves probably means it is not a matter of if but when that advantage is gone.

So from my point of view NH is for the most part a toxic place to invest in realestate due to the unpredictable carrying costs of property taxes. Not that it doesn't exist elsewhere but it is far more acute here that any oscillation in spending directly hits property owners and without regard to the impact of the person's ability to pay. Therefore many properties such as the one described even if owned outright may be lost for no other reason than the tax burden becomes to great. Of course nobody really cares that multigenerational properties are lost in this manner, only that there is somebody ready and willing to buy and take over the increased tax burden willingly. It is a sad but vicious cycle, but as they say, that is what they call "progress".

Being taxed out of your home applies to any owned real estate, not just woodlots. Towns benefit from timber tax as well as property tax. The owner of a single family home in a neighborhood is more susceptible than the wood lot owner whose property produces some sustainable level of income. Many woodlots are part of various conservation easements, giving additional protection.

[longislander]

In NH, 10 acres and more, can be taxed at a reduced rate, if declared "current Use"; Google it.

An additional reduction, if declared recreational use, in current use; e.g., letting snowmobilers go thru the property, etc.

You can restrict motorized vehicles and still claim current use with the low tax rate.

Actual Example for "current use":
Bought three years ago, 34 acres in Moultonborough that was in "current use" and annual town property tax was $24; not a typo ... twenty four dollars per year for 34 acres on land.

Took out of current use, a little under 2 acres for new-build house and driveway from the 34 acres. Was Taxed 10% of the assessed value of the just under 2 acres, and the rest on the property was still current use with very low tax rate.

On-going tax rate reflects just under 2 acres at regular assessed tax rate and balance of the 34 acres tax at the low current use rate.

Anyone with ten or more acres of vacant land should be looking at "current use", to pay a very reduced annual town tax.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by longislander

In NH, 10 acres and more, can be taxed at a reduced rate, if declared "current Use"; Google it.

An additional reduction, if declared recreational use, in current use; e.g., letting snowmobilers go thru the property, etc.

You can restrict motorized vehicles and still claim current use with the low tax rate.

Actual Example for "current use":
Bought three years ago, 34 acres in Moultonborough that was in "current use" and annual town property tax was $24; not a typo ... twenty four dollars per year for 34 acres on land.

Took out of current use, a little under 2 acres for new-build house and driveway from the 34 acres. Was Taxed 10% of the assessed value of the just under 2 acres, and the rest on the property was still current use with very low tax rate.

On-going tax rate reflects just under 2 acres at regular assessed tax rate and balance of the 34 acres tax at the low current use rate.

Anyone with ten or more acres of vacant land should be looking at "current use", to pay a very reduced annual town tax.

Maxum's point is those generous programs may disappear.

I know half a dozen families that were "taxed" out of their home in NH over the years. And I know several planning on it. They know they can't afford to stay after they retire. I don't know of any in MA.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

I know half a dozen families that were "taxed" out of their home in NH over the years. And I know several planning on it. They know they can't afford to stay after they retire. I don't know of any in MA.

This phenomenon is often misunderstood or overstated. First, many communities have programs designed to let strapped seniors slide on taxes until their house is sold in the future. Second, although many reverse mortgages have been shown to be predatory, today there are reasonable and fair reverse mortgages that allow people to pull equity out of their homes.

Individuals need to do their own homework here, not rely on rando posters (like me). But if an older person's real goal is to stay in their beloved home, there are options available. Of course, if folks are looking at a massive run up in value, and they want the cash, that's cool too. But it's not being taxed out of one's nest.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

In NH, 10 acres and more, can be taxed at a reduced rate, if declared "current Use"; Google it.

An additional reduction, if declared recreational use, in current use; e.g., letting snowmobilers go thru the property, etc.

You can restrict motorized vehicles and still claim current use with the low tax rate.

Actual Example for "current use":
Bought three years ago, 34 acres in Moultonborough that was in "current use" and annual town property tax was $24; not a typo ... twenty four dollars per year for 34 acres on land.

Took out of current use, a little under 2 acres for new-build house and driveway from the 34 acres. Was Taxed 10% of the assessed value of the just under 2 acres, and the rest on the property was still current use with very low tax rate.

On-going tax rate reflects just under 2 acres at regular assessed tax rate and balance of the 34 acres tax at the low current use rate.

Anyone with ten or more acres of vacant land should be looking at "current use", to pay a very reduced annual town tax.

Current Use II - Recreational only requires access for hunting, fishing, and scouting. It does not require access for any other reason... nor does it require all three items to be met on an open access basis.

For an investment property with a quick turn for maximum ROI, it doesn't make much sense. The math simply does not add up.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

Maxum's point is those generous programs may disappear.

I know half a dozen families that were "taxed" out of their home in NH over the years. And I know several planning on it. They know they can't afford to stay after they retire. I don't know of any in MA.

They failed to save and invest properly.
The numbers show this is the case with roughly 83 percent of all NH residents.
Even after paying off the mortgage, and lowering monthly costs, they have failed to save enough to reach replacement income through their investments.
A live for the moment and suffer the consequences of such later.

[longislander]

Current Use II - Recreational only requires access for hunting, fishing, and scouting. It does not require access for any other reason... nor does it require all three items to be met on an open access basis.

For an investment property with a quick turn for maximum ROI, it doesn't make much sense. The math simply does not add up.

My comment about current use was meant to address the tax factor of property. Some folks may not be aware of the savings. Our town tax collector once mentioned to me that she could not believe how much money could be saved by some residents if they went current use.

... the unpredictable carrying costs of property taxes ...

RE: current use.
Just Google it read for yourself.

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/current-u...-2021-2022.pdf


Short term investment advice on this website ... !!!
Surely you jest.

[WinnisquamZ]

One negative to placing land in current use is its resale value. Because the 10 year tax window pay back. It’s value at time of sale does get reduced


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Individuals need to do their own homework here, not rely on rando posters (like me). But if an older person's real goal is to stay in their beloved home, there are options available. Of course, if folks are looking at a massive run up in value, and they want the cash, that's cool too. But it's not being taxed out of one's nest.

Partly right. The family estate on the lake was 'taxed out' in the late '90s when the state took over evaluations using the 'view' tax. Neither the state or town had options back then other than veteran status. This happens to a lot of locals.
Estate has been part of the family since 1892. Beautiful 'On Golden Pond' fishing cottage overlooking the Broads. Unfortunately, the late '90s was not the time to maximize profits as it was in a recession.

As for woodlots/farms, we made the decision to set up our farm as a non-profit trust. This saves us a lot of money. When we were hounded by developers to sell and become rich, we put the trust under the Belknap Conservatory umbrella. To us this is the best investment, preserving land for the future generations!

[longislander]

One negative to placing land in current use is its resale value. Because the 10 year tax window pay back. It’s value at time of sale does get reduced

Not sure what you mean by "10 year payback window".

Resale value is determined by markets, not laws.

If you're alluding to the 10% "penalty" of taking land out of current use (doesn't have to be a sale), it is commensurate with land appreciation and market conditions. The 10% penalty is based on the present value determined by the town assessing office, which can be challenged (good luck).

In my humble opinion resale value will rarely be reduced. Quite the opposite. The 10% "penalty" for taking property out of current use will be higher as time progresses, as property value increases.

Current use runs with the property, including selling to others. Investments or "deals are in the eyes" of the investor.

[longislander]

I should add that the accumulated reduced tax in a current use situation, needs to be factored-in; 10 years(?) or any amount of years.

There's a point in time whereby the annual tax savings compensates for the 10% penalty, even if the property value remains stagnant or in the unlikely possibility of value reduction.

Namely, the tax savings makes up for the 10% tax penalty.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

My comment about current use was meant to address the tax factor of property. Some folks may not be aware of the savings. Our town tax collector once mentioned to me that she could not believe how much money could be saved by some residents if they went current use.



RE: current use.
Just Google it read for yourself.

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/current-u...-2021-2022.pdf


Short term investment advice on this website ... !!!
Surely you jest.

Then you should know that Current Use II only provides a minimal augmentation to the tax advantage... and that Current Use does not require 10 acres. It can be any size parcel that provides $2500 annually in agricultural or horticultural revenue.

Not to mention all of this is likely to change very quickly in the next few years. Much of it being unmanaged forest.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Partly right. The family estate on the lake was 'taxed out' in the late '90s when the state took over evaluations using the 'view' tax. Neither the state or town had options back then other than veteran status. This happens to a lot of locals.
Estate has been part of the family since 1892. Beautiful 'On Golden Pond' fishing cottage overlooking the Broads. Unfortunately, the late '90s was not the time to maximize profits as it was in a recession.

As for woodlots/farms, we made the decision to set up our farm as a non-profit trust. This saves us a lot of money. When we were hounded by developers to sell and become rich, we put the trust under the Belknap Conservatory umbrella. To us this is the best investment, preserving land for the future generations!

There is no ''view tax''. The ''view'' is simply part of the market value of a property like any other feature that potential purchasers are willing to pay more for.

Assessors look toward what similar properties are selling for and try to determine what the market value of any property is.

[longislander]

Then you should know that Current Use II only provides a minimal augmentation to the tax advantage... and that Current Use does not require 10 acres. It can be any size parcel that provides $2500 annually in agricultural or horticultural revenue.

Not to mention all of this is likely to change very quickly in the next few years. Much of it being unmanaged forest.

The tax advantage is great, not minimal, especially if non-agricultural. Speaking personally, the tax advantage for the 32 acres out of 34 (two for house and driveway) is very significant. How much farmland is under 10 acres?

Much of it being unmanaged forest

Which is it ... farmland or unmanaged forest?

likely to change very quickly in the next few years

Doubt it!


Can you provide the statute for Current use II?

Can you provide when the statute RSA 79-A was changed.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...TOC-V-79-A.htm

Current use is the means for encouraging the preservation of open space and conserving the land, water, forest, agricultural, and wildlife resources. Property owners with 10 or more acres of land, which are left in their natural state may apply.

https://concordnh.gov/295/Current-Use

BASICS
• Parcel must be at least 10 acres or provide $2500 in annual agriculture or horticultural products.

https://extension.unh.edu/sites/defa...76_Rep1099.pdf


What are the requirements for enrollment in Current Use?
A parcel of land that is 10 or more acres in size and is farm, forest or unproductive land. There are a few exceptions to this requirement such as: tree farms of any size, land used to grow an agricultural or horticultural products with at least $2,500 gross income per year and wetlands of any size.

http://www.nhspace.org/faq.shtml#1


https://www.nhmunicipal.org/town-cit...ral-operations

Also, view tax ...

"New Hampshire does not have a special statewide tax for properties with a scenic view. However, local tax officials may judge that a property with a scenic view is worth more money, which results in a bigger property tax bill."

"Since a home’s location impacts how much it is worth to homebuyers, a scenic view may increase the home’s value in the eyes of the tax official. If a property with a scenic view gets a higher appraisal, the property owner will have a higher tax bill. However, there is no special tax specifically for properties with scenic views. All property owners pay the same statewide property tax rate."

https://www.citizenscount.org/news/d...-have-view-tax


Please ... not the "semantics" issue to try to prove a point.

[Woody38]

100% invested in stocks and have always been even though financial advisors said I need bonds which they say yau cannot lose money on. Apparently they only refer to bonds like airports. municipals, ports and the like. All I can say is that the measley amount I invested in stocks has provided a great retirement and still continues to grow despite the sum withdrawn every year. Also own real estate and in my mind real estate is not a good investment.

___________________________________

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[John Mercier]

Most of Current Use is unmanaged forest.
The Recreational Discount does not add significantly to the savings after going to Current Use I.

And again, there is no view tax. It is simply based on the market value of home with a view being higher than one that is not. Basically people will pay more for the property with a view, the same way that people will pay more for waterfront. Which is what you quoted. It impacts the market value.

And the change... it is already being discuss.
https://www.nhbr.com/current-use-sys...-to-taxpayers/

''The current use program assesses forest, farm and idle or unproductive land at its current use rather than ad valorem, or fair market, value. Undeveloped parcels of at least 10 acres qualify for current use assessment. Forest covers 2,623,405 acres, or 87%, of the land in current use. The 204,353 acres of farmland account for 7% of the total and 180,698 acres of unproductive land and wetlands make up the balance.

In addition, cultivated plots of any size generating documented annual income of $2,500 from the production and sale of agricultural or horticultural produce also qualify.''

As for the recreation use discount...
It is 20% off from the Current Use I discount.
So if I have an $80,000 ten acre lot in top prime farmland, it could be assessed as high as $4250 according to the current rates. The CU II would only lower that by $850 to $3400.

Figuring a $20 mil rate, initial taxation would be $1600, CU I would be $85, and CU II would be $60.80
As you can see, CU I is the real workhorse... while going to CU II only saves $24.20

The scope of the program to lower development pressure, retain farmland, and forest for the paper industry has either failed or been a bit dismal in its overall results. Active farmland within the program has fallen and the paper industry isn't coming back.

I expect the changes will be within the context of the management and pricing structure of the program rather than a complete scrapping of the program. I would guess that actively manage farmland being a small part of the program will see the fewest increases and forest land without managed stewardship would see the highest - if they even decide that option should be allowed.

There has even been some chatter reported on by the various media outlets of a possible lawsuit against NH claiming that since this is a State program, it falls under Part 1 Article 28-a

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woody38

100% invested in stocks and have always been even though financial advisors said I need bonds which they say yau cannot lose money on. Apparently they only refer to bonds like airports. municipals, ports and the like. All I can say is that the measley amount I invested in stocks has provided a great retirement and still continues to grow despite the sum withdrawn every year. Also own real estate and in my mind real estate is not a good investment.

___________________________________

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

Because in most cases, bonds could be a buy & hold strategy thus only risking inflationary losses. TIPS & iBonds would remove the inflationary aspect... but it is more for investors that will need to draw on the money in a shorter time frame, but want more of a return than can be achieved in cash equivalent investments.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

...There has even been some chatter reported on by the various media outlets of a possible lawsuit against NH claiming that since this is a State program, it falls under Part 1 Article 28-a

I'd have to check dates, but I think current use laws pre-date the passage of Article 28-a. If so, that argument doesn't fly. My friends in the legislature are constantly on the look out for 28-a since it is an easy way to kill a new programs that force towns to add more programs that are unfunded mandates.
28-a is a great part of the NH Constitution.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Woody38

100% invested in stocks and have always been even though financial advisors said I need bonds which they say yau cannot lose money on. Apparently they only refer to bonds like airports. municipals, ports and the like. All I can say is that the measley amount I invested in stocks has provided a great retirement and still continues to grow despite the sum withdrawn every year. Also own real estate and in my mind real estate is not a good investment.

Agreed. The old saw about 40% of your portfolio being in bonds doesn't do anything for me. In the Obama years we were overweight utilities because we needed some reliable income. Since bonds were paying 1%, and utilities were at 3-4%, utilities became growth stocks for awhile. Of course, you can buy low grade bonds that pay more, but then you're into risky stuff and probably better off with Blue chip stocks. Real estate can be OK if you want to hold it for 30 years and collect rents after the mortgage is paid. The key here is leverage. The tenants pay the principal, interest, taxes and maintenance while you build equity. It may take a few years to learn to be a profit making landlord. Some RE investors never learn that. To me, because of the long time frames, RE is something to start when you're 30, not 60.

[longislander]

And the change... it is already being discuss.
https://www.nhbr.com/current-use-sys...-to-taxpayers/

From that same 2019 NH Business Review article ...

https://www.nhbr.com/current-use-sys...-to-taxpayers/

"“Land conservation is a foundational issue,” says Bob Giuda, a Republican state senator from Warren who has twice proposed legislation to study the issue"

The same senator that sponsored the Windham election fraud audit fiasco.

Then," when the Current Use Board met in June, Rusty Keith, a former selectman from Lyme, ..."

"Keith has suggested introducing a statewide current use tax, akin to the statewide education tax, to distribute the cost of the program proportionally among all municipalities. He noted that current use is a state program, governed by state statutes and rules"

Sure ... like what, the "Donor Town" concept, as in the Claremont lawsuits and decisions. Oh great!

I register to vote as an independent; not biased to either political party.

Current use
Here's a sample, not conjecture, reality, regarding 13.3 acres for my son, from the 34 acres I subdivided into two parcels, in Moultonborough. Current use property:

2021 Tax for 13.3 acres is $8.00. Not a typo ... eight ($8) dollars for the year.
Town land assessed value is $107,300

Moultonborough tax rate:

Year Total Town County School State Ed Median Ratio
2019 7.15$ 2.18$ 1.10$ 1.91$ 1.96$ 93.81
2020 7.13$ 2.11$ 1.15$ 2.09$ 1.78$ 92.50
2021 -

https://www.nhtaxkiosk.com/default.aspx

State statutes can be changed. Till then, current law (pun intended) is still valid.

Part 1, [Art.] 28-a. [Mandated Programs.] The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.
November 28, 1984

Note:" ... unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.
November 28, 1984."

Those are towns!

https://www.nh.gov/glance/bill-of-rights.htm

[John Mercier]

Current Use is not a town ordinance. It is a state statute subject to Part 1 Article 28-a.

The town does not have a chose to enter or not enter into the Current Use program, nor does it set the assessment rates. Those are set by a State board.

If you use the 2020 tax rate of $7.13, the board has set the assessment rate of your son's property at $1122. That is about $84 per acre, but could be as high as $105 per acre if he has CU II reducing it to the $84 per.

If the Court found that it is a State controlled program, the State would need to pick up the costs through some means. What that means is remains to be seen. Is it an increase in the SWPT with an actual transfer of funds, or by some other means. That would be up to the Legislature/Governor reacting to the Court finding.

It is really not a matter of how we vote.

[longislander]

Current Use is not a town ordinance. It is a state statute subject to Part 1 Article 28-a.

Who said current use is a town ordinance? How many times does anyone/everyone have to say current use is statutory. State law can be changed by the legislature and/or the NH Supreme Court case law stating the issue is unconstitutional.

Town ordinances are subject to town vote only if the vote does not conflict with statutes; e.g., zoning, parking ... All towns and governing bodies only have the authority provided by statute.

Example:Regarding masks in schools, vaccinations etc.
Even if a vote was is to overrule the school board, it would be "unenforceable". Statutorily, the school board decides. If the petitioners were to sue and get the NH Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear the case, and the Court decides "unconstitutional", then case law is created, is then NH law.

If present lawsuits convince the NH Supreme Court that there are conflicting statutes: school board policy authority v. school health issues ...constitutionality?

My property mentioned (under Trust) is assessed at $1,159, with a tax of $8.
How many other 13 acre parcels are you aware of paying $8 in taxes that are not in current use; in this town or on this planet!

My original comment that started this conversation was edification of the advantages of utilizing current use. Even if the legislature decides to take-up current use change, it will have to deal with "grandfathering" and probable lawsuits.

[John Mercier]

My point is that since it is not town, Part 1 Article 28-a plays a role.
A lawsuit, depending on outcome, could alter or even scrap the program.

Since the property is intended as an investment, that plays an overreaching role in the decision on what to invest in, and what the timeline of the hold is.

And there is no ''grandfathering''. The biggest possibility of a lawsuit on that issue would be could the municipality do a 10% penalty against a property due to the fact that the property no long had the CU option.

[longislander]

My point is that since it is not town, Part 1 Article 28-a plays a role.

Your point keeps changing. What does

that since it is not town, Part 1 Article 28-a plays a role.

even mean? Statutes not enacted by the town? The NH Constitution is an overall guiding law?

A lawsuit, depending on outcome, could alter or even scrap the program.

I've already mentioned:

State law can be changed by the legislature and/or the NH Supreme Court case law.

Since the property is intended as an investment, that plays an overreaching role in the decision on what to invest in, and what the timeline of the hold is.

What property are you talking about? My property? It is not an investment property in the sense of making money. The 13 acres are a legacy property. It is an investment in the sense that it makes good use of money, legally. Any property bought is subject to the buyer's intent, investment or not. Please don't try to explain "investment". Just Google it.

And there is no ''grandfathering''.

Grandfathering in the general sense, not necessarily in the statutory sense would be considered by those making decisions. How could it not ... affecting so much property, and creating effects on so many citizens, towns, and the state itself.

The biggest possibility of a lawsuit on that issue would be could the municipality do a 10% penalty against a property due to the fact that the property no long had the CU option.

What? Do you understand the 10% penalty? Do you understand it is law ... now! The towns have no choice. There can be no lawsiut on something being discussed by whomever, if that is what you mean?

"The land use change tax rate is "10% of the full and true value" of the land that no longer qualifies for current use (RSA 79-A:7). The 10% land use change tax is not based upon the amount of taxes saved over the years in which the property was in current use."

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/current-u...15-booklet.pdf

Maybe you can reference your next "current use" point, that you'll undoubtedly try to make, referencing one of the following in the URL:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...TOC-V-79-A.htm

[John Mercier]

The property investment being discussed as the OP suggested.
He is looking to an investment property to turn in 6-12 months at a profit.

As for Part 1 Article 28-a... if it isn't a municipal program, our Constitution requires the State to pick up the cost for the program.
That is the NH Constitution. CU is not a municipal statute, so a Court finding would be the State has to cover the cost of the program should they decide to keep it.

The Court does not ''grandfather''. Taxation is annual, so the Court could ''stay the order'' to give the Legislature some time to act, but that would be limited once the legislation is considered unconstitutional.

I understand the 10%. I have used both CU I and CU II before.
Currently the legislation requires when a property is removed from CU, that a 10% of valuation to be paid. If the current legislation is found to be unconstitutional, and the program is scrapped. It may/may not be constitutional to charge the 10% penalty... since it is part of that current legislation. So the municipality could charge the 10%, but a landowner may file lawsuit to recover the 10%... as they did not choose to leave the program.

This isn't new to those of us born and raised here growing up in the farming and forestry community.

[longislander]

Your last post reveals nothing new, in more ways than one.

One doesn't have to be from the farming or forestry community to have basic reading and comprehension skills.

[LikeLakes]

Bigdog, you started the thread 5 days ago, have a lot of input, plus a few people arguing current use and how it impacts long term investment. Any thoughts now that people have weighed in?

[John Mercier]

He didn't stipulate a long term investment.
6-12 months.

And then he asked which town(s) around the lake.

People chimed in with stock and bond index funds - valuable plays but not what he even inferred - and then went off a tangent about long term investing.

A 6-12 month investment in property somewhere around the lake creates a hefty acquisition/carry cost. Will the expansion of valuation cover the acquisition/carry cost and provide a return? Hard to tell.

He would need a property that is in high demand with few other competing parcels.

Belmont, where I live, has open parcels - even some large ones - but we have also seen some of the developments sit idle for years and looking for buyers.

The Gilmanton property I got at a very good price - paid less than 50% of assessed value - and placed in CU II for seven years. I made money, but not sure that I couldn't have done just as well being in stocks. A lot less paperwork and I could have hidden it in tax-deferred accounts.
But he didn't ask if stocks were a better long term investment.

Raw land as a short term passive investment - at least in my experience - is very fickle. Active investors - like developers and builders - seem to do much better.

[BroadHopper]

So the state now deems that property with a view as a location plus so the state deems that that property should be taxed at its so called selling price.

At the time of the new appraisal that shot our appraised cost sky high and many others have seen an increase in our taxes six-fold. Before the town consider the property as seasonal i.e. we are on a dirt road, not maintained by the town, we don't use any town services such as schools, etc. So our taxes were low. The town has a separate rate for use. Also, my dad was a veteran and also 65+ After the state ruling, that rate is gone and there is no discount for 65+ Just veterans.

If you google the time the state took over appraisal many farmers had their property tax increased as their property is in what the realtors call an attractive location! A good example is a blind farmer whose property in Orford NH value has increased 8 fold because it was taxed at the appraised value if the farmer has to sell the property! He did get a reprieve as the appraisal was base on the value of the land if it was separated and sold as lots!

Hence the title view tax was born. Our farm was one that was hit badly. The original appraised value by the town for 350 acres in the early 90s was 900,000 when the state took over the appraisal value went up to 7 million! The concept was if the land was divided into individual lots, it would be worth a lot more. Because of the lawsuit, it was settled out of court and the state can't use the concept of individual lots when doing a tax appraisal.

A lot had happened during the time the state took over the appraisal mainly because of the education tax fiasco. I get that everyone should be taxed fairly and every child in the state should have a decent education, but there is no right formula to use and they are still playing the political game today!

[LikeLakes]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Raw land as a short term passive investment - at least in my experience - is very fickle. Active investors - like developers and builders - seem to do much better.

I totally agree with this John. I know some of us, myself included, have answered questions that were not asked. It's just a forum, I don't always go back and carefully re-read the post when I reply, though I do read the whole thread. I think the OP choosing not to come back and comment just lets us go off on a discussion of various topics, which by the way is interesting so that's ok too.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

So the state now deems that property with a view as a location plus so the state deems that that property should be taxed at its so called selling price.

At the time of the new appraisal that shot our appraised cost sky high and many others have seen an increase in our taxes six-fold. Before the town consider the property as seasonal i.e. we are on a dirt road, not maintained by the town, we don't use any town services such as schools, etc. So our taxes were low. The town has a separate rate for use. Also, my dad was a veteran and also 65+ After the state ruling, that rate is gone and there is no discount for 65+ Just veterans.

If you google the time the state took over appraisal many farmers had their property tax increased as their property is in what the realtors call an attractive location! A good example is a blind farmer whose property in Orford NH value has increased 8 fold because it was taxed at the appraised value if the farmer has to sell the property! He did get a reprieve as the appraisal was base on the value of the land if it was separated and sold as lots!

Hence the title view tax was born. Our farm was one that was hit badly. The original appraised value by the town for 350 acres in the early 90s was 900,000 when the state took over the appraisal value went up to 7 million! The concept was if the land was divided into individual lots, it would be worth a lot more. Because of the lawsuit, it was settled out of court and the state can't use the concept of individual lots when doing a tax appraisal.

A lot had happened during the time the state took over the appraisal mainly because of the education tax fiasco. I get that everyone should be taxed fairly and every child in the state should have a decent education, but there is no right formula to use and they are still playing the political game today!

The State has always deemed that any particular of a property is to be included in the assessed market price. Both positives and negatives.

The State does not do the assessing. That is generally an independent hired by the municipality, or an assessing department if the municipality has a large enough population. They only assess what the property would sell for if it were placed on the current market; per NH RSA 75.

SWPT existed long ago and was reused to meet the accounting need - is related to the Part 1 Article 28-a ratification. All State mandates must be paid with State taxes that are uniform throughout the State.

Most people do not realize that the State was founded with SWPT in place, and it included tools and livestock at the time. It still includes on-highway vehicles under a special rate consideration - that is the part paid to the municipality.

[garysanfran]

The OP didn't say he was looking for a 6-12 month investment. He said he could liquidate land in a short time... 6-12 months.

If you want a 6-12 month secure investment guaranteed to be worth more, put it in a money market account at 1%.

[fatlazyless]

Appalachian Mountain Club's Three Mile Island property is supposedly located on three different islands, and is in "current use" property tax category, so's the large building with the dining hall must be in its own separate parcel of land, or something.

How were they able to do that? ....... omg ..... ..... must have had a very smart cookie to figure that one out! ....

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Appalachian Mountain Club's Three Mile Island property is supposedly located on three different islands, and is in "current use" property tax category, so's the large building with the dining hall must be in its own separate parcel of land, or something.

How were they able to do that? ....... omg ..... ..... must have had a very smart cookie to figure that one out! ....

You can place a majority of a parcel in CU, but AMC is a non-profit. So it may be more than CU coming into play.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

The OP didn't say he was looking for a 6-12 month investment. He said he could liquidate land in a short time... 6-12 months.

If you want a 6-12 month secure investment guaranteed to be worth more, put it in a money market account at 1%.

He state reasonable time frame of 6-12 months, and a concern for inflation.
Then a support for real estate.

Real Estate with easy liquidation is a REIT ETF; short term interest bearing with a concern for inflation is a TIPS.

[winterh]

I mentioned Bitcoin as an investment option when this thread started. Take a look. Hope you listened.

[Winnisquamer]

Originally Posted by winterh

I mentioned Bitcoin as an investment option when this thread started. Take a look. Hope you listened.

I’ve seen a roughly 200k increase since you mentioned it…. Gotta love getting in early and watching it work

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by winterh

I mentioned Bitcoin as an investment option when this thread started. Take a look. Hope you listened.

So what exactly is the value of bitcoin based on? How can that even be considered a real investment when what drives it's price is nothing but perception? There nothing either intrinsic and tangible backing it's "value".

That to me is Las Vegas style investing.... a total crap shoot.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

So what exactly is the value of bitcoin based on? How can that even be considered a real investment when what drives it's price is nothing but perception? There nothing either intrinsic and tangible backing it's "value".

That to me is Las Vegas style investing.... a total crap shoot.

Exactly--the sales pitch is better currency, alternative to dollar, bold new future.... But really it's more similar to gold or diamonds in a less developed much more volatile market

[Bizer]

Originally Posted by bigdog

I'm looking for investment options in today's crazy times....

Stock market - Forget It !
Bonds - Nope !
Gold & Precious Metals - Can't take a gold bar to Wal-Mart or Hannaford
Annuities - Long term, and big penalties if withdrawn before maturity

Which leaves real estate ! Not interested in residential housing or commercial.
I'm thinking of residential land, because God's not making anymore
I realize that land is not really liquid asset, but in today's market, it could turn-over in a reasonable time-frame if I needed to cash-out. By reasonable time-frame, I mean within 6-12 months.

(rest of text omitted)

Do you own a home? Do you own a 2nd home at the lake? Well, you're already heavily invested in real estate. Why put more eggs in that basket?

Personally, I recommend at least 50% in a low-expense, total market, index fund, like VTSAX or an ETF like VTI. Yes, stocks go up and down, but on average they out-perform real estate.

[winterh]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Exactly--the sales pitch is better currency, alternative to dollar, bold new future.... But really it's more similar to gold or diamonds in a less developed much more volatile market

Not just similar to gold but superior in many ways
https://medium.com/road-less-venture...e-e5464d5fd619

[John Mercier]

People can create other formats of cryptocurrency... to date, I don't know of anyone that can ''create'' gold.

[LoveLakeLife]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

People can create other formats of cryptocurrency... to date, I don't know of anyone that can ''create'' gold.

Rumplestiltskin! Or any other qualified alchemist. ha


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

People can create other formats of cryptocurrency... to date, I don't know of anyone that can ''create'' gold.

Great point--no one except the inventor of a particular cryptocurrency has any idea how much of that currency will be created and when. The buyers are simply hoping the supply will be optimal. A sucker's game for all but a few

[winterh]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Great point--no one except the inventor of a particular cryptocurrency has any idea how much of that currency will be created and when. The buyers are simply hoping the supply will be optimal. A sucker's game for all but a few

Actually, at least in the case of Bitcoin everyone knows exactly how much will be created. It is set in stone how much and when. I completely understand why many on this forum view it as some kind of a Ponzi scheme. The folks on here, myself included, tend to skew a bit older and more conservative. I was equally skeptical but have relatives who work in the industry and have been somewhat educated (I still don't completely get it and never will) and convinced of it's value and future. Invest in what allows you to sleep at night and never invest more than you can afford to lose but do not be so quick to dismiss a tech that you probably do not understand. It may not be Bitcoin but eventually paper money will be gone and currency will be digital just like everything else.

[winterh]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

People can create other formats of cryptocurrency... to date, I don't know of anyone that can ''create'' gold.

Gold can be created but the process is not yet financially viable

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by winterh

Actually, at least in the case of Bitcoin everyone knows exactly how much will be created. It is set in stone how much and when. I completely understand why many on this forum view it as some kind of a Ponzi scheme. The folks on here, myself included, tend to skew a bit older and more conservative. I was equally skeptical but have relatives who work in the industry and have been somewhat educated (I still don't completely get it and never will) and convinced of it's value and future. Invest in what allows you to sleep at night and never invest more than you can afford to lose but do not be so quick to dismiss a tech that you probably do not understand. It may not be Bitcoin but eventually paper money will be gone and currency will be digital just like everything else.

True that Bitcoin has posted that no more than 21 million coins will be mined. But completely uncertain that they will adhere to that cap. It is also completely uncertain who "they" are or what possible safeguards are in place to enforce the 21 million ceiling. Of course, there is a gigantic incentive for Bitcoin to increase the cap as soon as it is hit...

My fundamental problems with Bitcoin are:

It's easy to be skeptical of governments and banks, but it's absurd to think anonymous coders are more trustworthy.

The only transactions for which Bitcoin are intrinsically better than dollars are illegal transactions. For any other transaction, the fees and friction of dollars and big banks are nothing compared to the daily price volatility of crypto

[Descant]

I think I'm about 95% digital without Bitcoin. My receivables go directly to my bank account. My bills go to the same bank for autopay. I buy stuff online or in a retail store with a credit card, which is on autopay. Occasionally, a vendor will say, "Cash only. I'm saving for retirement."
I expect the creators of Bitcoin are at least as trustworthy as Congress and the Fed when they want to create more money.
I could buy Bitcoin which is certainly volatile, or something like MRNA which increased in value 500% September to September. At least a company like Moderna has physical assets that could be sold to pay debts. Bitcoin has no such assets.

[John Mercier]

It is not the amount of any specific cryptocurrency that I was speaking of... it was the ability to create another cryptocurrency.

[winterh]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

True that Bitcoin has posted that no more than 21 million coins will be mined. But completely uncertain that they will adhere to that cap. It is also completely uncertain who "they" are or what possible safeguards are in place to enforce the 21 million ceiling. Of course, there is a gigantic incentive for Bitcoin to increase the cap as soon as it is hit...

My fundamental problems with Bitcoin are:

It's easy to be skeptical of governments and banks, but it's absurd to think anonymous coders are more trustworthy.

The only transactions for which Bitcoin are intrinsically better than dollars are illegal transactions. For any other transaction, the fees and friction of dollars and big banks are nothing compared to the daily price volatility of crypto

No offense but there is so much wrong with your comment that it is clear you have at best a superficial understanding of Bitcoin or how it works. I can absolutely understand why some are skeptical but so many of the arguments I hear people make against it show a complete lack of understanding. Best to just say I don't get it and it's not for me.

[John Mercier]

The problem with Bitcoin is that it is not the only cryptocurrency.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by winterh

No offense but there is so much wrong with your comment that it is clear you have at best a superficial understanding of Bitcoin or how it works. I can absolutely understand why some are skeptical but so many of the arguments I hear people make against it show a complete lack of understanding. Best to just say I don't get it and it's not for me.

Please correct me on the specifics

[baygo]

Originally Posted by winterh

Bitcoin.
Ethereum.
Assorted alt coins

10/12/21 Bitcoin closed @ $56,007. It is currently trading @ $38k +/- and loosing confidence fundamentally and charting bearish technically.

[winterh]

Look at the charts since inception. I never said the stuff was not crazy volatile. I guess you could worry that its down from 60k+ or be happy that its up to 38k from the pennies it started at a few years back. Either way it is not for the faint of heart. Never invest more than you can afford to lose. I recommend you dollar cost average in while its down and HODL.(look it up) Crypto of some kind will eventually replace fiat. Will it be Bitcoin or something else? Will we live to see it? Who knows?

[garysanfran]

Stock equities are also going through a bit of a correction...Volatile times!

Put your money in a mattress and pray you don't have a house fire!!!

[baygo]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

Stock equities are also going through a bit of a correction...Volatile times!

Put your money in a mattress and pray you don't have a house fire!!!

Yes… in times of uncertainties (of which there are many now) equities will struggle.

The fact that money continues to move into gold (where it has always gone through times of uncertainty and inflation) tells me that Bitcoin is not replacing it as forecasted by the BTC exuberant.

[dickiej]

I’m 69…pulled every penny out of the stock market last month and put it into an IRA savings account. Too old to ride out another crash.

[baygo]

Originally Posted by dickiej

I’m 69…pulled every penny out of the stock market last month and put it into an IRA savings account. Too old to ride out another crash.

Not too old, too wise. All the writing on the wall has me interpreting the bear market is upon us. My crystal ball speculates in lives for the next 36 months or so.

Warning: I am not a qualified financial advisor or market consultant. Do not trade based on my crystal ball. I post such views simply to be able to reference them when in conversation at a future date with my brother in law.

[LikeLakes]

For Dickiej, in an IRA, he can sell out without the tax implications and buy in again later if he chooses. For taxable accounts I'd consider it a questionable strategy. Think a bear market is coming? So what? In any 10 year period in the history of the stock market, if you stayed invested through downturns you would end up outperforming those who cash out and buy back in later.

Obviously for someone that is only a few years away from needing cash from their investments it may be a different story, but cashing out completely is rarely, if ever, a good strategy in taxable accounts.

Just my 2 cents, not a pro, no insight beyond my own experience and lots of reading.

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by mswlogo

Maxum's point is those generous programs may disappear.

I know half a dozen families that were "taxed" out of their home in NH over the years. And I know several planning on it. They know they can't afford to stay after they retire. I don't know of any in MA.

I highly doubt that will ever be eliminated in our lifetime. The purpose of current use was to reduce sprawl. Then again I believe many owners of nice homes around the lake would welcome low income housing across the street from them.

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by baygo

10/12/21 Bitcoin closed @ $56,007. It is currently trading @ $38k +/- and loosing confidence fundamentally and charting bearish technically.

Interesting... I suppose those stocks that are down 50-80% are as bad as crypto. Wait till the RE market crashes 50-75%... it will, I'm sure there's many of you that have experienced it multiple times. There's nothing safe... you have to be smart and not follow the herd. The hardest part is buying when the entire world is saying to run for your life! Buy crypto, buy stocks, buy real estate , but only at the right time and right now is NOT the right time.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by swnoel

I highly doubt that will ever be eliminated in our lifetime. The purpose of current use was to reduce sprawl. Then again I believe many owners of nice homes around the lake would welcome low income housing across the street from them.

It was not the purpose of current use.
Farmers were losing their property due to valuations that agriculture could not cover.
CU will most likely be amended to require each property to have a management plan.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by baygo

Yes… in times of uncertainties (of which there are many now) equities will struggle.

The fact that money continues to move into gold (where it has always gone through times of uncertainty and inflation) tells me that Bitcoin is not replacing it as forecasted by the BTC exuberant.

Because the term ''fiat'' is misunderstood. Technically the USD was fiat when on the Gold Standard. The Congress decreed that an ounce of gold was worth X amount of USD and could change that ratio at will. Once the US left the Gold Standard the USD trades at market value based on what those selling/purchasing the USD value it at... so it is now market-based like BTC.

The difference argued by the BTC crowd was that BTC had a known limited amount that could be brought to market. But because it is digital... each ''coin'' can be infinitely deluted... not much different than dilution of the USD.

I think the best inflation hedge would likely be the I-Bond. Strength of the USD, but with the inflationary hedge built in.

[mbr]

It's wise to keep in mind the old adage "buy low, sell high".
Right now real estate is at all time highs, and when it comes time to liquidate, which could take time and has high costs, the value may very well be lower. This bubble won't last. Remember 2008?
Money market funds have taken a dive this month, so it's a good time to buy in. I may even put some more into my S&P index fund. Every time it dives, I move some cash into it, while others panic and sell. After a few weeks or months, it goes back up.
I use Vanguard, which has very low costs and easy liquidity.