US ECONOMY GROWS 4.3% IN Q3, FASTEST PACE IN TWO YEARS ...

And every bit of it went to AI, jews, niggers, and immigrants

Memory maker, you say?

Of all the gene therapy candidates Pfizer could have come up with, this was among the dumbest. This gene therapy would have cost between 2 and 3 million dollars. On the patient side you have a bunch of hemophiliacs who don't want to spend 2 million fucking dollars just to avoid regular therapy involving exogenous clotting factors being injected into their veins. On the hospital or clinic side of things you have a healthcare system that doesn't want to lose repeat customers. Sell a gene therapy for something that makes life absolute fucking hell and has no viable treatment.

Reasonably competent real estate investing allows for a median return greater than that of the S&P 500 at the cost of taking on more risk and being very time consuming:

1. Risk - In aggregate price of housing + reinvested rental income has historically had a lower return than the total return of the S&P 500. The way you get excess returns in real-estate investing is through the safe leverage it offers you. If you put 20% down on a rental property that’s 5x leverage, on a fixed rate loan that can’t be margin called, and that you can cash out refinance if rates drop. This is nowhere near as risky as a 5x margin loan on the S&P 500 that just a little bit of volatility will get you margin called but it’s still quite risky, especially when you take into account that initially your mortgage will be higher than your rental income. Furthermore, if you want to upkeep your properties most of them will have to be near you so you can easily upkeep them. By owning a bunch of houses in the same area you lack diversification and are extremely exposed to regional risk. The housing market in aggregate can go up while the rental properties you live around can go down. If you own a total stock market index fund like VTI or DFUS, you own 3,700 + stocks. You can handle if some of those go to shit. If you own 5 rental properties if even just 1 goes to shit you probably didn’t beat the index. Real-estate investing done right has higher 90th and 75th percentile returns at the cost of lower 25th and 10th percentile returns.

2. Time - It takes maybe 30 seconds a month to buy an index fund like DFUS. With a rental property you have to remain on call fixing everything that goes wrong with it, and dealing with the nightmare that rentoids are. You will have to eat shit and pay legal costs to evict rentoids that don’t pay. You have to spend time and money when they fuck your rental property up. You have to deal with all sorts of zoning laws and tenants rights laws if you want to change anything. It fucking sucks. This gets worse as your wealth grows as more rental properties require more time.

I’m not against real estate investing. If you’re good at it go for it, but I wouldn’t even look into it until I have a lot of money in a taxable account. Always max out your retirement accounts, because the tax benefits are huge and after taxes are hard to beat with real estate. No matter what you should be at least doing your 401K matching.

If you want to get involved in real estate investing I would make sure you have a lot in stocks in a taxable brokerage account relative to the total value of your mortgages so in case something goes wrong you can handle it. You don’t want to have all your wealth in rental properties and then have cash flow problems that force foreclosure.

This is not financial advice

Institutional land lords like REITs increase the price of housing while lowering rents.

This seems paradoxical because people think mortgages must always be cheaper for land lords to make a profit. The truth is that most landlords eat shit on the cash flows early with their mortgage payments initially being greater than their rental income, but eventually rents rise while their mortgage remains fixed. Land lords take the hit on negative cash flows at first to have higher cash flows later. In aggregate land lords make more in rental income than they pay in mortgage, property taxes, insurance etc. But across all the land lords in a nation most of them are further along in the mortgage.

The sheer amount of single family homes institutional land lords have bought has driven up the price of housing in suburbs. However, because there’s a greater supply of rental properties rents are relatively cheaper to the price of housing than they’ve ever been.

Institutional land lords have a lower cost of capital, they can secure lower interest loans since they are much more diversified than normal landlords owning thousands of homes as opposed to a single one. Institutional land lords have a more stable cash flow due to diversification where if one property isn’t making rent this is made up for by the rest. Institutional land lords also have lower administrative costs, they use division of labor and hire someone who’s entire job is to manage the properties, they can buy repair supplies in bulk and they can have attorneys on call which at such a large scale is cheaper than paying for a one off to deal with a shitty rentoid. As a result the institutional land lord gets to keep a larger % of the rental income.

The post expense rental income of an institutional land lord is higher while their cost of acquiring a house is lower because of their lower cost of capital meaning more rental properties are profitable to them than the average land lord.

The major problem here is a shift from physical ownership to “you will own nothing and be happy” on net a renter who’s a disciplined investor has about the same total wealth as a home owner. However, there are other reasons why you’d want to own a house as opposed to renting.

1. Owning a home provides stability making it much harder for you to get priced out of the neighborhood you want to raise your kids in.

2. Owning a home gives you more freedom allowing you to make whatever renovations you want giving you customization.

3. Owning a home means you don’t have to deal with a land lord.

4. Most people are not disciplined investors and home ownership is forced investment. Realistically the rentoid will just spend his extra cash flows instead of letting them compound with the higher returns the market offers.


Renting makes sense if you need the freedom to move quickly. There’s big transaction costs involved in selling a house so if you’re living in an area for less than 5 years it’s usually better to just rent and invest the extra cash flows.

Institutional land lords are fine for apartments and commercial real-estate but should be banned from purchasing single family homes as to better align with people’s preferences. It’s good for institutional land lords to drive down the cost of real estate that most people would rather rent like apartments. It’s bad when they drive up the cost of owning a home in real estate most people would rather own.

Commercial real estate has to be done through institutional land lords, because the buildings are extremely expensive, meaning small time land lords can’t own them. Furthermore, commercial real estate offers higher rents relative to the value of the property at the cost of less frequent rents. Everyone needs to live in a home, not everyone needs to run a business. An institutional land lord can own many different commercial properties and in net have higher cash flows because the properties that aren’t paying are made up for the high rents from those that are.

Commercial real estate requires higher diversification to achieve the same risk profile and this requires owning more properties. The construction projects required to build commercial real estate are much more expensive and larger than those of a house. A local contractor can build a house but it takes a huge company to build an office building.

"INSTEAD OF BEING UNABLE TO AFFORD HOMES DUE TO THEIR WASTEFUL SPENDING, YOUNG PEOPLE ARE FINANCIALLY RECKLESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO HOPE OF EVER BEING ABLE TO AFFORD A HOME," PER REALTOR,COM ...

The reason you can't afford a $700,000 three-bedroom house is because you keep spending all your money on Starbucks. But also you spending all your money at Starbucks is really good for orange faggot's economy.

If enough people reduced consumption and started saving up for homes, it would reduce inflation so that Trump could lower interest rates and then home prices would explode again.

There's no winning in a jewish economy. You just have to destroy it, and kill the people who created and ran that economy. Legally and with due process.

Lowering interest rates doesn’t effect the affordability of homes. People buy homes not based upon the price of the home but rather the price of the mortgage payment at a fixed length.

When interest rates go down the price of homes goes up because the lower interest rate reduces the mortgage payment for a home of the same value.

If the mortgage payment stays fixed and interest rates drop the price of the house increases. If the interest rate decreases the price of the house increases with the mortgage payment remaining the same.

The main issue driving up the cost of housing is immigration. More immigrants means a greater demand for housing and the costs immigrants impose through crime and corruption reduce the cost of housing.

Really what matters is not just the cost of housing but the cost of nigger free housing in an area where you can get a job: Immigration, DEI and increased integration lead to there being fewer and fewer areas you can have a family. Deindustrialization has caused the middle of the country to be so poor that you can’t support a family there. All the jobs are near cities with forced diversity so you’re stuck in suburbs that try to price out minorities until some fucking kike builds affordable housing.

Private insurance is the reason Pfizer gave up on their gene therapy candidate. This treatment easily pays for itself in a decade, but we can't have cutting edge biotechnology because of capitalism.

Insurance must be nationalized to correct this flawed incentive structure.

JUST IN - Trump admin to begin garnishing wages of defaulted student loan borrowers in January.

Read here: https://www.disclose.tv/id/nbvn769g4n/

@disclosetv

Our picks for this week:

$CSX - buy under $34, sell at $37 or greater
$HIMS - HOLD: Awaiting new technical analysis
$SRFM - double down at $1.60, sell at $10
$BYDDY - buy under $12, sell at $17
$IAUM - buy when above 25 day EMA, sell when below 25 day EMA
$KLAR - buy (the stock continues to drop, we still have insufficient technical data on it. I have only bought $1k worth)
$RACE - buy at $370, sell at $500
$LAR - buy if under $5.00, sell if $6.50 or higher
$LAC - buy if under $4.50
$ZROZ - buy at $65 or under, gradually build position. Larger purchases if under $60.

What has changed
I made the $ZROZ target a little more reasonable at $65. Any dip below $63, and especially $60, would prompt larger purchases.
The probability of a near-term crash or drawdown has made me opt to take profit early and increase my cash position (I'm 49% cash). I will be targeting 60% cash, and then moving money into long duration Treasury bond ETFs if/when the market finally shits the bed. This strategy can only really shine if there is a combination of a market drawdown and significant rate cuts. Without the drawdown, you're missing out on bigger gains that you could have had from stocks.

As always, this is not financial advice. I'm 1.6% black and 100% retarded, but somehow beating most fund managers at their job.

This is what a serious country does. America does TrumpNiggaFartCoin rugpulls instead.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-29/china-to-pay-interest-on-digital-yuan-in-bid-to-boost-adoption

Being a rentoid and putting your money in stonks just makes sense

🚨🇨🇳💰 ~ China’s trade surplus has grown from $993 billion in 2024 to $1.08 trillion in the first 11 months of 2025, making it the first country in recorded history to reach the $1 trillion milestone.

What tariffs?

Nigler beat me this time