2 Years to a Million in Real Estate (9780071471879): Matthew Martinez
It’s Saturday – that means it’s time for Burbed’s book of the week!
Amazon.com: 2 Years to a Million in Real Estate (9780071471879): Matthew Martinez: Books
A few years ago, Matthew Martinez was a lot like you – he worked hard to make as big a salary as he could. But it wasn’t enough. He worked by the clock, and yearned to be his own boss. With a small amount of savings, he acquired his first rental property. Two years later, he was making more from his rentals than he was working 9 to 5, so he quit his day job to oversee his real estate investments. Today, he enjoys a multi-million-dollar collection of income-producing properties–and he’s ready to share his money-making strategies so you can begin your own journey to career and financial independence.
Two Years to a Million in Real Estateshows you everything you need to know, including how to
* Invest small amounts early-on while working a full-time job
* Avoid real estate “bubble” risks
* Get others to pay your mortgage for you
* Pick a hot property (and spot others that will become hot)
* Simplify the ins-and-outs of financing
* Negotiate like a pro
* Screen for reliable tenants
* Understand how local tenant laws work
* Hire good people to manage your properties
* Know when to sell
Wow. Just think, if you started reading this book today, you could have a million in Real Estate in just 2 short years. Now, granted, this could be a million debt, but debt=wealth if you do it right. And to do it right, you need this book.
What’s important is that you have the right attitude, full of confidence, and not be a doubter, a hater, like this guy:
But is it credible?, November 2, 2007
By JJ – See all my reviews
The book follows the author on his path to success through real estate management/investment. When I reached the point in the book where the author made his first real estate investment purchase in the summer of 2002 I paused to consider the housing market he succeeded in. With a copyright of 2006, the author must have generated the bulk of his successes between 2002 and late 2005/early 2006 – heady times for the real estate market. His claim that the book will “… teach you how to duplicate my achievements…” is questionable given the present housing market. If he were starting out today would he have achieved so much so fast?
People like that are going to go nowhere in life. On the other hand, you, with this book, will simply soar!
On October 3, 2011, I expect you to be able to please help this site out, click this link to learn more!
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
Buying an Island seems more achievable than a million in 2 years.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Good news!
Sunnyvale homes sold for above asking on the average last month.
San Jose and San Francisco are among the top 5 cities with highest median income.
10 year bull market has begun!
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Sunnyvale homes sold for above asking on the average last month.
—–
Looks like ghetto part of Sunnyvale (94085) saved the face. Time for making 94085 as RBA and downgrading 94087 and Palo Alto as non-RBA.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Good news!
Sunnyvale homes sold for above asking on the average last month.
—–
BTW, RealEstater is talking about “above asking” again! Do you guys remember when he talked about it last time? In November 2008. Thanks for the “Good News”, RealEstater. We will be waiting for next “good news” – around October/November 2010.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Too bad Juliana’s graph doesn’t compare sales price with original list price.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
from the bull market bull**** article:
Stocks are the only reasonable money-making investment in this current environment of low interest rates. Why “put your money into a 30-year U.S. government bond at 4% and wait 30 years to get your money back?” he asks.
In other words, he’s counting on the Dow being the next bubble because of a dearth of good places to invest – not because fundamentals indicate stocks will outperform.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Too bad Juliana’s graph doesn’t compare sales price with original list price.
—–
Although it is an obvious lie, when SV Shopper tells story about losing a bid in Sunnyvale property which was “sold for over asking”, you know what kind of property he is talking about. He is definitely looking at good school districts in 94085 (or may be 94089). Not “lousy schools” in 94087. After all, his trophy wife is very big on education.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
whatever happened to /uploads/Donations.png ?
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Come on nomadic, you should know by now so-called “fundamentals” doesn’t matter anymore. If it does, would Google even be worth what it does today? It may sound counter-intuitive, but that’s how things work in this day and age. Take BA real estate for example. If you try to value it based on standard “fundamentals” criteria like median income, unemployment rate, etc., you would’ve mis-calculated by a long shot, because the overriding factor is lack of supply, and only the top quartile of income earners in this high income area is needed to support the market.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Yeah. It’s supported by the top earners. Who can’t afford it either.
So where so you think it is going to go?
My guess is: down.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Pralay,
It’s quite obvious you will disparage anyone who doesn’t find the market crashing. The Sunnyvale data from last month shows that SV Shopper was not lying, since overbidding was common in Sunnyvale. When he said it the data was not even out.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:05 am
SV Shopper was not lying, since overbidding was common in Sunnyvale.
—-
Yes, it’s quite common – only north of El Camino. After all, Sunnyvale is not uniform.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:07 am
SV Shopper was not lying
—-
RealEstater knows it. After all he is SV Shopper.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Yeah. It’s supported by the top earners. Who can’t afford it either.
—-
Well, when top earners cannot afford it, foreigners will support it.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:44 am
since overbidding was common in Sunnyvale.
—–
11 out of 59 – that’s quite “common”, according to RealEstater.
And let me guess the property where SV Shopper made offer.
418 S Mary Av: Listed: 420K, Sold: 525K
259 Velvetlake Dr: Listed: 377K, 455K
After all, his trophy wife is VERY big on education.
October 4th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Ah hahahah.
What a joke property is.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:01 am
What a joke you two are.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:18 am
As expected, Rescue Dog is back to rescue RealEstater.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Need a new script from you, Pralay.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Last time I tried to entertain RealEstater he got offended.
Where is Rescue Dog? As a last resort, he must turn into Whining Dog and whine about “low quality crowd”. That would be according to the script.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Need a new script from you, Pralay.
—-
And RealEstater needs a new dictionary for new meaning of “common”.
October 4th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
More on RealEstater’s favorite city Sunnyvale (and the city where poor SV Shopper keeps losing his bids due to misguided advices from Burbed readers):
First of all, one and half year back Sunnyvale wasn’t RealEstater’s favorite city. It was Cupertino. But then Cupertino’s SP/LP came down to 97.9%. As a result, he no longer mentions Cupertino in his “Good News”. He does not mention even his own city Palo Alto due to its 98.9% SP/LP. Now only Sunnyvale in his heart and mind, due to its 100.8% SP/LP. And he ignores the fact that “Sunnyvale is not uniform” and all the “over asking” things are in North Sunnyvale (“just like Santa Clara” part) – not in South Sunnyvale (“the Real Bay Area” part).
(cond in next comment)
October 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Let’s check out South Sunnyvale zipcode 94087 in Redfin.
Last year inventory (SFH only) at same time: 23
Inventory now: 87
RealEstater does not mention this information.
More. In June RealEstater declared madhaus’ neighborhood (south Sunnyvale) “fully recovered” . As a proof, he showed two just listed properties. Well, one of them (1583 Kennewick Dr) was sold $75K below asking. Talk about “overbidding was common in Sunnyvale”! “Wife-very-big-on-education” SV Shopper was definitely not bidding for this property. Other one (973 Harney Way) is still on market. Wow! It’s already 100+ days on market and counting. Probably this one with 2036 sqft is too big for SV Shopper’s criteria.
Now, let’s look at “just like Santa Clara” part of Sunnyvale – 94085.
Last year inventory at same time: 43
Inventory now: 21
RealEstater does not mention this information either. Sunnyvale is now U-N-I-F-O-R-M. No South or North Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale is Sunnyvale.
October 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
BTW, check out East Palo Alto. SP/LP jumped to 102%. “Overbidding is everywhere”! If RealEstater can combine Palo Alto and East Palo Alto together, may be he will be able to include Palo Alto in his “Good News” too. What do you think, RealEstater?
October 4th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Bollywood! Bollywood! Who needs Sunnyvale when you got Bollywood?
October 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Nice new script, Pralay. RE, too bad you’re pwned again.
Your comparison in #9 is ridiculous too. Comparing RBA housing to the stock market isn’t even apples & oranges. More like apples & french fries.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Hey Real Estater, you’re famous! Another one of your avatars was spotted in an open house:
“Or the unhappy-looking man who, when I asked how he’d heard about the open house, bellowed, “I don’t need to buy a house! I already live in Palo Alto!” Even his agent, who looked like she could bend nails with her teeth, looked mildly embarrassed.”
I’d personally have written “barked” instead of “bellowed”, but in an open house, nobody knows you’re a dog!
October 5th, 2009 at 8:31 am
You know, RE has a point in post 9. Many people here (or patrick.net) will say “houses are overvalued, because the price is more than 100x monthly rent, or it’s more than 3x median income.” And if you are looking to be a landlord then you should calculate the price vs rent.
But a lot of buyers (particularly in RBA) are not looking to be landlords. They are looking to live in the house, and want to buy it. So they look at what they can afford to buy, not looking much at what a house “should” cost based on median income or rent.
(sure, if rent was $500/mo for a house listed at $1.5m then the annoyance of frequent moving could be tolerated. but that’s not the case).
So these are the buyers who are actually getting these houses. If someone won’t buy until houses reach some desired mathematical ratio, well, they may enjoy the fact that renting is relatively inexpensive here compared to buying.
Also, consider what some of the buyers are used to in terms of income vs home price. Beijing: median income in 2006 was $4660. http://english.sina.com/china/1/2007/0327/107816.html
Housing price was $842 per sq m. http://www.btmbeijing.com/contents/en/business/2006-04/coverstory/houseprice
(for some reason that’s how it’s shown there). A typical apartment might be 60 sq m. (650 sq ft) Some bigger, some smaller. So, 60* 842= $50,520. Price / income = $50,520/$4660 = 10.8. Even if you consider that 2 income couples are common, thereby doubling the income, it’s 5.4. And prices have gone up since 2006 – Shanghai is about $2200/sq meter now! (Driven by increasing incomes). The data is a little sketchy (if anything the prices seem a bit low based on what I’ve seen) but you get the point.
My point is that certain buyers are willing to pay more than mathematical metrics may indicate. So waiting for housing to go to 3x income, or 100x monthly rent, will be a long wait.
Having said this, it’s undeniable that RBA prices have fallen since 2007, perhaps 15%. I don’t think they’ll go to 3x median (which would be around $450k in places like Palo Alto) but there’s likely some more downside. And it doesn’t necessarily follow that RBA is a great investment either. Renting it out is a money loser on a monthly basis. Perhaps in the very long term it could pay off but that’s not clear.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I looked at Julianna Lee’s web site, and noticed something. the median prices all took a big jump from 99 to 00 but then didn’t go up so much since then. For example:
Los Altos;
99: 1.050m
00: 1.574 m. 50%!
08: 1.949 m 24% since 00.
Saratoga:
99: about 950k, there’s graph but no table.
00: 1.836 m. Roughly double
08: 1.790 m flat since 00.
Cupertino:
99: 699k
00: 984k. 41%
08: 1.238 m. 26% since 00.
She plays fast and loose with “average” vs “median” but the trend is there.
So basically there was a huge jump in 99->00 (driven by dot com of course) then slight growth since then. Sure, the dot com was a bubble, but there’s no denying that it brought a lot of money into this area, which accounts for this spike.
There’s something for everyone here:
- Can’t rely on doubling every 10 years. the price increases depend on a spike which can’t be predicted.
- OTOH – the generally accepted reason for RE prices rising is loose lending starting in 2001. But these RBA places did not see much increase between 00 and 08, so what loose lending may have existed didn’t do much there. Meaning that stopping the loose lending would also have less effect. Now, surely the general downturn will have an effect. And if we devolve to a Mad Max existence then none of this matters. But this can explain why RBA is not seeing the 50% declines that other places are seeing – there was not a doubling due to loose lending. So if prices revert to pre-loose lending levels, they are still higher than in 99, and not down that much. (e.g. 24% in Los Altos)
October 5th, 2009 at 10:11 am
SiO2, this chart:
http://www.firstrepublic.com/lend/residential/prestigeindex/sanfrancisco.html
should interest you. For an extended discussion of similar points regarding RBA and intrinsic value, you should check this:
http://www.burbed.com/2009/06/19/palo-alto-is-now-value-alto-house-on-university-ave-for-sale/#comment-47605
I think you’ll find our thoughts aligned.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
So basically there was a huge jump in 99->00 (driven by dot com of course) then slight growth since then. Sure, the dot com was a bubble, but there’s no denying that it brought a lot of money into this area, which accounts for this spike.
——
What constitutes “slight growth”? If you look at Prestige chart provided by Steve, its 2003-2007 growth is not “slight” by any means. 99-00 price increase in understandable, but how much money do you think came to valley after 2003?
October 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
SiO2 left out the bubble that inflated and semi-deflated in between data points.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
More on RealEstater’s favorite “fully-recovered” Sunnyvale:
Hammer Dropping on Sunnyvale Town Center
Hopefully arrogant Sunnyvale sellers will respond to SV “wife-very-on-education” Shopper’s lowball offers this time.