CW 708 - Christian Stadler - Brexit & Real Estate, Enduring Success: What We Can Learn from the History of Outstanding Corporations, Refi 'Til Ya Die

This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company.

For more information and links to all.

Our great podcasts, visit hartmanmedia.com.

Welcome to the Creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. You're about to learn a new slant on investing, some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world's most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine, self made multimillionaire who's actually been there and done it. He's a successful investor, lender, developer and entrepreneur who's owned properties in 11 states, had hundreds of tenants, and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason's footsteps on the road to your Financial Independence Day. You really can do it. And now, here's your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.

Welcome listeners from around the world. This is your host, Jason Hartman. Thank you so much for joining me today as we dive into episode 708708. Gosh, is the mortgage meltdown gonna come back? Are we gonna have another one? Are the banks getting too crazy? Is it getting too frothy? Are they lending too? Has good common sense and prudent decision making. Has it gone out the door? Well, I want to thank you to our former investment counselor and listener, Patrick Perry, good friend of the company who sent me this article on how Silicon Valley banks basically are offering new hires of these tech companies. Get this, you're not going to believe it. 100% mortgages on just 24 hours notice. Hmm. You know, I remember back in 2002, 2003, 2004, as we were leading right up to the financial crisis, getting emails saying one day out of bankruptcy, one day out of foreclosure, one day out of prison. No, they actually didn't. That last one was a joke. Okay. You know, I say, a lot of the stuff I say on this show is for entertainment value, actually, though I bet they would have made the loan to someone one day out of prison as well. FICO score 560 and above. We can finance you for 95 or 100% loan to value ratio. And you know, we're seeing some inklings of this craziness again, aren't we? Yes, we are. So, yeah, Silicon Valley bank will give you a 100% mortgage cheerfully. They will supply it on 24 hours notice with all the white glove service trappings you could ask for. And that's what this article says. This article is in. Gosh, what publication is this? BoingBoing.net, maybe that's a Silicon Valley publication. I don't know, never heard of it before. But anyway, yeah, so it says, you know, you want to go to get a job at one of these big tech companies in Silicon Valley and maybe you're getting relocated and you need a 100% mortgage on your massively overpriced multimillion, $2 bedroom, one bath Silicon Valley home. And you need to know in 24 hours if you can have that mortgage. Well, that's back again. So Patrick, thank you so much for sending me that article. It is mind boggling what is going on out there. It's really mind boggling. Well, our guest today is going to talk a little bit about, yes, you have it, great companies and the Brexit, what it means to real estate investors. We're probably done with this Brexit subject, I think for a while. But you know, it's somewhat recent so we got to talk about it a little bit because there's still some, still some important things. But we did have one of our clients and listeners that sent over a note about refi till you die. You know, we recently ran a show on that. And I just want everybody to understand, of course, when you refi till you die, if you're taking cash out of the property, yes, you're increasing your loan balance and potentially, but not for sure, just potentially, but I will say probably increasing your mortgage payments on a monthly basis as well. But as you do that on these maybe 12 year cycles, remember rule of 72s pro property doubles in value every 12 years at just a modest 6% appreciation. Nothing crazy, just kind of that. Well, what many experts would say is the national average. Now why do I have to say that that way? Why can't I just say that's the national average? Well, because everything is more complicated than it looks on the face, right? You have to slice and dice that into which index you're using. What markets does that index consider? Is it the silly CA Shiller index that only does 20 markets and 14 or 15 of those I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole because they're places like Silicon Valley that are way too expensive and way too cyclical. Remember, we like the good, prudent, conservative linear markets that just chug along and do their thing. You know that old story of the tortoise and the hare? Well, you might also compare it to something like an airplane versus a cruise ship, right? Everyone knows an airplane is going to get you there a lot faster most of the time. But that cruise Ship, it just chugs along at 20 knots and it just does its thing. And as you relax and you have a pina colada, maybe you go and do a little dancing in the nightclub. On the cruise ship, you go to sleep, you wake up the next morning comfortable, no tsa, no big hassles. And guess what? You're there at your new port of call because it's so consistent. It just moves along like the tortoise, and it just gets there. And it does it over and over again, very reliably, with a much lower cost per passenger, much less complexity than that airplane. And, hey, I like airplanes, too. But I'm just saying, it's that old metaphor of the tortoise and the hare. So, yes, you refi your property and your payment goes up, but your rents are going up all those years, at least historically, of course, we all know rents go up. Remember that funny guy? He was actually running for office. Was he running for president? You know, there's a whole bunch of people that have run for president you've probably never heard of. In fact, I remember a friend of mine years ago saying that there was actually a book with everyone's name that has ever been written on the ballot in this book, and I'm sure it's in a database that ran for president. So if you don't know who to vote for, and you don't want to vote for the criminal known as Hillary Clinton, and you don't like the guy that just says silly things like, you know, very politically incorrect, if you don't want to vote for him either, that would be Trump, the good old Trumpster. Then you can just write your own name in on the ballot, and you'll be in that database of everyone that was ever written in. It's actually not everyone that ever ran. It's everyone that was ever written in. That's got to be a pretty big list nowadays, right? I think you should write in some fake names. Well, you can always do that. But look, just understand that the idea of refi till you die is that your rents will go up to meet that new mortgage obligation. And certainly historically, they have. Because, remember, everything responds to the pressure of the marketplace through time. You have people in the marketplace that are thinking of doing things, that are always faced with choices. So if they're an owner occupant, or not an owner occupant, just an occupant. They need a place to live, they need a house. They have to answer one of three questions. Should I buy? Should I rent? Should I be homeless. They don't want to be homeless. So the two remaining questions are buy or rent? And they are bound by the pressures of the marketplace. What is the cost to buy? Are interest rates a lot higher? Well, that's going to make my mortgage payment higher, so then maybe I'll rent. Well, what if a new investor is thinking of entering into the investment market and renting out a house to a third party? They're going to look around and say, how much does financing cost? What are current rents? Does it make sense to invest? And if they decide no, it doesn't make sense to invest, then that limits the supply of rental housing stock. So all of these questions constantly, every player, every actor in the marketplace, whether they're buying or renting or investing, they always have to answer these fundamental questions. And if the questions don't make sense, theoretically, they will make a decision that is the sensible, logical decision as things go. So I just want you to know, in the Refi till you die scenario that I've outlined many times on past episodes, nobody ever said the properties would be free and clear. That's not the idea. That's a bad strategy. We don't want free and clear properties. We like leverage. We want the money out of the property. We want to engage in equity stripping so we have the cash out because there's no tax on borrowed money. This is the most tax efficient way and the most wealth efficient way and the most asset protection efficient way to extract the wealth from your properties through my Refi till you Die plan. So please, I beg you, go back and listen to that again. And if you don't want to listen to the last episode where I covered that, go to jasonhartman.com and type refi till ya ya. You know slang Refi Till youl Die. And listen to some of the older episodes where I've talked about this as well. And I think you'll really enjoy them.

And get a lot out of them.

And with that in mind, remember we did not, I repeat, we did not change the date on our upcoming event. Which, by the way, I'm so happy to see. So many of you are registering for tickets, are selling like hotcakes. And folks, you shouldn't eat hotcakes because they're not good for you, but this event will be good for you. And that is our income property software and buying event. It looks like we're going to have four, yes, four local market specialists there talking about properties in their areas. You're going to learn how to analyze real estate investments like a pro. And we're going to do some case studies for firsthand case studies, some role playing on whether or not you should make a go or no go decision on a property. Live stuff. It's going to be a great event. This is a totally new event For Us, a two day event in Phoenix on September 10th and 11th and early bird pricing right now pricing will go up. Tickets are selling like hotcakes. So get your tickets for fast before that event fills up and before the price goes up. As it fills up, go to jasonhartman.com and click on the Events tab or you can just go directly jason hartman.com events and join us for that. Also our Venture alliance event coming up, we've got a few guests that have registered for that as well. Remember you can do that right there in that same event section. Come as a one time a guest for just $2,000. Hey, these venture alliance events, these are first class events. They're high end. Okay. These are for really serious people.

So check that out.

Also in the events section@jasonartman.com or for more information just go to venturealliancemastermind.com without further ado, let's get to our guest and dive in to this topic. In more details we talk about real estate, Brexit, how investors are affected and great companies.

It's my pleasure to welcome Christian Stadler to the show. He is a professor of strategic management at Warwick Business School, strategy contributor to Forbes magazine and author of Enduring what We Can Learn from the History of Outstanding Corporations. He was against the Brexit. He wanted to Britain to stay in the eu. So we're going to talk about that and get some of his thoughts on the economy as a whole and some of these sharing economy types of businesses which I think you'll find very interesting as well. Christian, welcome. How are you?

I'm fine. Thanks for having me on your show.

It's good to have you. And you're coming to us from where are you located?

I'm located in Bath, a small beautiful town in the southeast of England.

Fantastic. Well, first of all, the Brexit, that's the big thing in the news. Britain has exited the eu. They've gained their independence. You were not in favor of this. Tell us why.

Well, partly I'm Austrian myself, so living in England obviously for very personal reasons would prefer if we would stay in the European Union here. But also for pure economic reasons I think virtually. Well, everyone I think is too strong a statement. Yeah. But most experts have agreed and the vast majority of economists that this is not a good thing from an economic perspective. In the short run, it creates a lot of uncertainty. The markets don't like that. And we have seen the effects immediately with the pound dropping to its lowest value since 1985, with the markets reacting strongly after Brexit in a negative way. In the long run, it depends a lot on what the outcomes will be. But it's a very hard task for the new government to find a deal that is favorable for the United Kingdom.

To find a deal. What do you mean, a trade deal or what are you talking about?

Yes, I mean there's various options on the table. The problem is partly the way the negotiations are structured. Once you might have heard of this famous article 50, which means essentially that you trigger the official negotiations with the European Union. And once that is triggered, there is only a two year period until you're out of the European Union. Now the European Union has made it clear that they will not engage in any informal discussions prior to the triggering of this article 15. Now, two years is an extremely short period to renegotiate relationships with the European Union. So in practice you probably have only two options in these two years. One option would be that you will copy a model that is very similar to Norway. Now the Norway model is in essence that you have all the duties as the members of the European Union, including making payments to the European Union that are similar to the ones that are members with not having any say in decisions that are being taken by the European Union. So obviously that's not something that is particularly advantageous for the United Kingdom. The other option is that you fall back on the regulations of the World Trade Organization. And that is something that is not at all desirable for the United Kingdom because it would give them much harder time to access the European Union. Other types of deals, like the one that is currently in debate with America, the one which is close to being finished with Canada, are likely to take 10 years or potentially even longer. So not something that is possible to be achieved in such a short time. That's why it's really such a big problem for the United Kingdom to find a way out of this self inflicted crisis.

Do you think that other countries will leave the EU Now? Is this a trend? Is this an anti establishment, anti bureaucracy, anti big government, anti globalism trend?

I mean, these trends are certainly there. Whether these trends are so strong that countries leave is really hard to say. Partly it will depend also on what happens with the United Kingdom, which means that the European Union will try to, well, maybe not quite punish, but make it a difficult bargain for the United Kingdom so that it doesn't give the impression that everyone, you know, you can just pick and choose and get those things that you want. Because ideally the United Kingdom would like to have full access to the market, having possibly even a say in banking regulation, which is particularly important for the United Kingdom, but being able to limit immigration in a way that the country seems to be fit. It doesn't mean no immigration, but basically having the last word and who is allowed to come in and who is not.

I have a good friend of mine who lives in Vienna in your home country, in Austria. She is very, very concerned and she says everybody there is very concerned about the possibility of another terrorist attack. Of course, to give a time perspective, just yesterday an Islamic terrorist ran over and killed about 80 people in France and injured another hundred people. He had guns and grenades in his truck. Of course, France has very strict gun control, but I guess the terrorists don't respect the laws. Imagine that this is an immigration problem, don't you think? You know, people in Europe are very concerned about this stuff and the EU seemingly, and I'm not an expert on this, has forced these European countries to let their countries be overrun with immigrants that have questionable backgrounds from third world countries. I mean, is this right that they do this?

So there's a difference between perception and what is happening as well in this context. So first about the security issues. In fact, one of the potential worries for the UK is that they will not have such an easy way to coordinate with security services, with secret services which are part of other countries in the European Union. There's various regulations that make this coordination easier when you're part of the European Union. So in fact, as you say, terrorists do not respect borders. Being not able to coordinate so easily and so straightforward makes it more difficult to battle terrorism. The fact that you have, I just.

Kind of don't understand why countries would relinquish their sovereignty to this globalist organization like the eu. I mean, when I saw the Brexit happen, I predicted there would be short term pain, but long term, I thought it would be better for England. And, you know, that all remains to be seen. It just seems like they're relinquishing their sovereignty. I mean, why should they do that?

Yeah, let me just, you know, before I go to this, let me make one more point on the terrorism story. So, you know, open borders means open borders within the European Union. The European Union doesn't have open borders to the outside world.

Right. But they do by default. I mean, look at Greece. Look at all these countries have just been forced to take all of these Syrian refugees and, you know, if they weren't part of the eu, they could all do their own thing, but they can't. The EU pressures them.

Well, I mean, the European Union has been, you know, tough on this since the heydays about a year ago. Now, specifically for the United Kingdom, one of the kind of gentlemen's agreements they have is that France keeps migrants on the French side rather than letting them through to England is a big camp in Calais. And not being part of the European Union, it would be surprising if the French continued to do that and just let them through. So, in fact, you know, it enhances this particular issue for England. On your other question about the sovereignty, one has to be a bit careful. All the big decisions are not taken by some supernatural body, but they are taken by the member states. So there's a Council of Ministers where the respective leaders of the various countries. Countries come together and they actually take decisions on what's happening and what's not happening. So a lot of things are blamed on the European Union, but they actually come from the various member states. It's simply not true that you give up sovereignty by being part of the European Union. It's not the same as being part of one country. There's still a very distinct difference.

Yeah, now, I know it's a different model than being annexed by a country, for example. It's not that, but it's, you know, you give up some of your sovereignty would be the more proper way to put it, because, you know, if you're giving up tax revenue, that's some of your sovereignty. Or, you know, money. Right. It's just money. So that's. That's part of it. So what does this mean for the overall global economy? And particularly we have a lot of listeners who are real estate investors. I'd love to hear. I know it's not your specialty, but if you have any thoughts on it, please feel free to share them and tell us about all that.

Well, you know, it might not affect the wider world. It certainly has effects for Europe, it has effects for United Kingdom. But how big the waves are in United States, in Asia, in Africa, that's really hard to predict. It's possible that they have some issues with exporting goods to Europe to the UK because their currencies are. Both currencies are likely to go down, which makes it more expensive to buy products that are produced in the United States. Over here, it could Mean, on the other hand, if you are real estate investor and you want to invest in the UK in London for example, as a market that right now with a cheap pound, you have opportunities and I think we saw a little bit of that.

But let me just chime in on that. Even though the pound is down, so on the currency conversion you're better off. The prices are still insane and it makes no sense at all for real estate investors. I just want to throw that comment in. That is the kind of cyclical market that is just absurdly. Price and the rent to value ratios are awful. So anyway, but go ahead.

Yeah, I mean, one of the worries if you're an investor in London is that if a lot of the big companies decide to partially move staff to Europe, that there's less need for offices, office space, and that there is less people who need housing and prices go down. So you could have that effect as well. Absolutely, yeah.

Okay. All right. What else? As far as the global economy, real estate markets around the world, it does seem like one of the results is that it will give the US Central bank, the Federal Reserve, a lot of excuse to keep rates low, which there are many critics of the low rates, of course, because it's not like it's all good. There are negative side effects of low rates for sure, especially for older people. And it gives the Fed an excuse to keep the rates low because, you know, instability, so on and so forth. We got to keep rates low. And so for real estate investors investing in US real estate, I mean, that's a fantastic opportunity, I believe, because it means higher prices in the future, likely it means very low rates. You can lock in 30 year, three decade long fixed rate loans at incredibly low prices. There are many aspects to this. So please, what are your thoughts?

No, I mean fully agree for now, there's an excuse and this excuse will last at least for another couple of years where there's a lot of uncertainty. Once it becomes clear what the solution will be over here and there's more certainty, then I think that will be harder to sustain. But at least for a couple of years, I see this trend absolutely playing out exactly the way you describe it.

What else should we know? I mean, what questions have I not asked you that we should talk about here? There are many political ramifications, of course. The politicians are all trying to scramble to hold their power and do their thing. Of course there are immigration issues, both legal and illegal. What do you think about some of these issues?

I mean, at the moment it's really chaos when you look at the politicians here, it is painfully clear that no one expected the result that we got. And as a result, no one was prepared. So even those who were the leaders of the Leave campaign had never thought this seems to happen and they have no idea how to actually go forward. That's pretty worrying for companies. I think one thing that we see is that they all take a wait and see position. They are preparing potential exit plans for part of their business if it becomes harder to do business from the UK for the rest of Europe. You see, for example, a lot of of the American banks have their headquarters for Europe in the UK was a perfect entry market. Now should it become tedious to do business with Europe from the uk, they might move to Amsterdam, they might move to Frankfurt, they might move to Dublin. So one of the. We talked about real estate a minute ago. One of the things that we've heard is that there's expectations that the Frankfurt real estate market is heating up because banks might move some of their activities from London over there. Now, as this is happening, that could mean job losses over here, maybe not dramatic, but a sort of slow missing of additional investments, less new jobs created. So that's really a big worry for us here in the UK at the moment.

What do you think about the direction of the political climate in England now? Will it become more conservative or is this a vote for conservatism or will it become more liberal?

I mean, in the short run, certainly more conservative. We have had most of the cabinet positions for new government announced by now and they are decisively to the right of the former government. So absolutely true in the short run. Now, I guess it depends how well this government fares, whether there will be in another election a new trend towards liberalism in the longer run. I think one thing that we have seen in England and we see across Europe, this is not just a vote about immigration. It's also a vote about.

A lot.

Of the working class having had a tough lot since the 1970s, things seem to get a little worse every year and they feel forgotten. And they really wanted to also show that to the establishment with this Brexit vote. Now, at the moment, in most Europe, European countries, that's a trend towards the right. In some places like Spain and Greece, it is a move towards the left, but it is a strengthening of populist parties that sit on the more extreme spectrums of the political scale.

Yeah, okay, so when it comes to the issue of immigration, is immigration good for an economy or is it bad for an economy? Of course, this debate Rages on everywhere. But what are your thoughts?

It does. Yeah. If you look at various studies that try to see whether they take more or give more, they all overwhelmingly come out with the result that from a pure contribution to government coffers, immigration is a good thing. Now, where we need to make a distinction is when you look from an individual perspective. It depends a lot in which type of job you are in. If we talk about unqualified blue collar workers who are finding competition from people who come from other countries where they're prepared to take lower salaries, that's from an individual perspective, can be a negative point of view. But overall there is strong evidence. Now, the reason for that is twofold. On the one hand, it has to do with demographics. Most of the immigrants tend to be younger and younger people are more likely to contribute rather than take out from the social system. That's one reason why immigration tends to work out positively. The second one is what we would call as economists, that they are self selected groups. Self selected in the sense it takes initiative for you to leave your country. Even if you look at a terrible place like Syria, you can stay there nonetheless, or you can just move to your neighboring country in Libya and see and hope that things go somehow become better to make that journey, which is difficult and dangerous across the Mediterranean. Many die over there. It takes that sort of initiatives and people with initiative tend to be more successful. That is, they tend to then contribute more to an economy.

That's interesting you say that, and that's a good point. And I can definitely see what you're saying. However, I just want to tell you, I was reading an article about that that was really saying like the opposite of what you're saying. It was saying that the people who leave are the traitors. They're the people who bailed out. They're the people who are like the lowest quality because they wouldn't stay and stand with their country. You know, the idea of, you hear this American idea where you see these American flags whenever there's a big troop movement, you know, on the back of a car that says, you know, it's got a picture of the American flag and it says these colors don't run, you know? Right. So the idea is they're saying that these people are the runners, they're the chickens, they're the people who just bail out when things get tough. Now granted, listen, this is a war zone, so this is not like a minor problem. Obviously I would probably be leaving too, but I just wanted to point out that counterpoint so I mean, from the.

Perspective, the countries which are losing the immigrants, that's true. But from the ones that receive it, it's a positive. This term brain drain, which I guess we haven't heard in a while. But in the 90s, this was something mentioned a lot where you have a lot of the smart people moving to new countries, and the countries that receive them, they benefit from that. The ones who lose them for them. Yes, it's a negative calculation. And the United States has a long history of immigration that has been tremendously positive for the country. You look at the largest companies in the United states, the Fortune 500 companies now, now 22% of them were founded by children of immigrants, and 18% were founded by immigrants. So that's a considerable proportion of the largest organization in the United States were founded by immigrants. Now, considering that only about 10% of companies.

Right, so you're saying, I mean, you're talking about all of the dry cleaners, the liquor stores.

No, no, I'm talking about the Fortune 500 companies.

Oh, okay.

So, you know, the most successful.

But, you know, is it. I mean, it's interesting in this. Is it fair to classify immigrants as though they're one generic thing? Isn't an immigrant who's highly educated from Europe or India or Asia different than an immigrant who's uneducated from Mexico, for example? You know that. I mean, is it fair to say an immigrant's an immigrant the world around or, you know, are they all the same? Of course they're not. You know, some come with money, some come with education, and you're welcome to argue which one's better or worse, but I'm just saying they're not the same. Right?

Not true. Yeah, they're not the same. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

I mean, you get these really highly educated engineers from India and Asia versus refugees from, you know, a backward country, literally, where everybody's just destroying each other. I mean, that's not the same thing. It's. And now, granted, certainly many of those people, most of them want to leave. They hate those monsters that are destroying their country, of course, but, you know, they certainly haven't been educated in the top schools in the world, and they don't have money. And, you know, I mean, you can argue those are the things that an immigrant would contribute to an economy other than just working hard.

Right.

So that's true. That. That's a difference. Yeah. But what they all have in common is this early argument about being a self select those who actually decide to leave and start. So also those Guys who come without education, they are more likely to start a little corner shop and make a.

Living out of it. And they're more likely mostly to appreciate what they have than the people who take it for granted. We Americans have all seen this and of course we realize it. Where the family that was the Japanese immigrant that got out in World War II, for example, came to the U.S. opened a liquor store, started investing in real estate. And then through the generations, each successive generation just upgraded and upgraded and upgraded and now they're rich and successful and contributing huge tax dollars to the country.

What you have sometimes with poor immigrants, they might understand markets that others don't even find attractive at that point in time. But then it becomes attractive over time. For example, bank of America was found poor Italian immigrant who understood that his fellow countrymen can't get loans the usual way. So I start this bank to make that possible. And now, I mean, look what became over time of this bank.

Yeah, right, right, yeah, that bank became a really crooked enterprise that.

Caused the.

Banking crisis and the financial meltdown around the world and bought Merrill lynch and other crooked company. But anyway, that's another discussion. Just. Do you notice how I just want to pick at everything you say?

I do notice.

I guess that's part of this is for entertainment value. Okay. So don't be offended. But yeah, absolutely. Well, what would you like to share with our audience that maybe I haven't asked you yet? Christian, as we're wrapping up, I mean there are some talking points here I've noticed about fuel efficient cars coming to the forefront. There's some talks about ride sharing like Lyft and Uber, things like that. Anything you want to share there?

Well, I had recently an interview which was, I think it was New York Times if I remember correctly, talking about this competition between on the one hand you have Google, you have Apple, and on the other hand you have the OEMs. And a lot of people expect that. Well, you know, who can compete with Google, who can compete with Apple? They established car companies. It's just a question of time until they're out of business. Now I take a very different view on this one because the question here is whether these technologies around self driving cars, around batteries, whether they are a disruptive innovation or they are more sort of continuous step by step innovation in evolution versus the. Exactly. And I think it's more of the later. There's some real barriers that make it almost impossible to flip over overnight. Regulation is usually complicated in the United States in order for you to have these self Driving cars on the road, you need to bring the federal government on board, you need to bring the state government on board and you need to bring the local communities on board. Now this is a regulatory jungle which is not going to be solved overnight. Therefore this complete new solution doesn't work in one go. There's also big technology problems when you come to solutions that like Google or Android, you use the web, etc. On the other hand, established car companies go more step by step. They have these sensors which they build into cars. So my dad for example has a car when he drives on the highway, then he can just press a button and the car will drive after the car that is in front of him and will keep the distance that is appropriate. And it slows down if he gets slower, but he doesn't drive entirely. This is something that is possible, it's allowed at the moment. This is also something that most people are a bit more comfortable. So I think it's going to be a step by step adoption and that's where the car companies have an advantage. That's why I think really they're going to win this particular battle.

Yeah, it's very interesting and I've talked many times before Krishna about how the self driving car. I purchased a Tesla a few months ago just for this reason. I think it's going to just be such a game changer for the entire world, for the real estate business because real estate has always been predicated on three basic rules. Location, location, location and geography is less meaningful than it's ever been in human history. It still matters, but it just doesn't matter like it used to. I mean people travel around the world, around you know, the city, around the state very easily. You know, that's, that's a beautiful thing because that, that commute becomes much less impactful if you can, can get in your car and work on your laptop or read or take a nap or you know, it's just not that big a deal. Now we're not quite there yet but it's right around the corner obviously.

Yeah, but there are also interesting opportunities in here for real estate. Yeah. When you think at the moment you need a parking spot as well. Now in future people might not need parking spots. So a, I have more space where I can develop. Also I could possibly cut some deals with companies that have a fleet of cars so that actually part of your apartment. You also purchase some sort of deal that can give you mobility as well. So you know, there's also opportunities.

I don't even think you need that. I think it'll just be done by the companies like Lyft and Uber because you'll just summon a car when you need it. One estimate I saw from Peter Diamandis was that 40% of the typical city is covered by parking spaces. Can you imagine if we free that up? It's totally incredible. I mean, a car doesn't need to sleep, it can just run all the time. I mean, if it's electric, it's got a charge for a little while, but you know, by and large, cars can run a lot more. We, the typical driver uses their car 4% of the time, 96% of that. The time the car is just sitting there depreciating. Why should we own one? It's absurd. It's really a crazy idea. Yeah. So, so very interesting. It's. I always say it's an amazing time to be alive. It really is an amazing time, you.

Know, and I'm, I do hope though that they're going to knock down the parking house and not just refurbish them.

Right. We, we sh. We shall see how that's all used. But just know listeners, a lot of that 40% is not developable for anything. I mean, of course you can take a whole parking lot and turn it into an apartment complex or a shopping center or whatever, but you can't take the driveway in your house and do much with it. You know, maybe you can make a yard, you know, that, that won't change that much. So that's part of the 40%. Just understand that, you know, it's not all instantly something you can turn into another development.

You could put an extension though. Yeah. The UK has very strict regulation buildings. In bas, which is a World Heritage Site, it's virtually impossible to get land converted to the new building. So the only way that space is expanding through extensions and that you can definitely do with your driveway as well.

Add on. So you could add a bedroom or something like that. And that's certainly an idea. Yeah, good point. Christian, it has been a pleasure speaking with you. Please give out your website and tell our listeners where they can find you.

Well, Christianstata.org so quite easy. Just my fantastic.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks for having me again.

I've never really thought of Jason as subversive, but I just found out that's what Wall street considers him to be.

Really? Now, how is that possible at all?

Simple. Wall street believes that real estate investors are dangerous to their schemes because the dirty truth about income property is that it actually works in real life.

I know. I mean, how many people do you know, not including insiders who created wealth with stocks, bonds and mutual funds? Those options are for people who only want to pretend they're getting ahead.

Stocks and other non direct traded assets are a losing game for most people. The typical scenario is you make a little, you lose a little and spin your wheels for decades.

That's because the corporate crooks running the stock and bond investing game will always see to it that they win. This means unless you're one of them, you will not win.

And unluckily for Wall Street, Jason has a unique ability to make the everyday person understand investing the way it should be. He shows them a world where anything less than a 26% annual return is disappointing.

Yep, and that's why Jason offers a one book set on creating wealth that comes with 20 digital download audios. He shows us how we can be excited about these scary times and exploit the incredible opportunities this present economy has afforded us.

We can pick local markets untouched by the economic downturn, exploit packaged commodities investing and achieve exceptional returns safely and securely.

I like how he teaches you how to protect the equity in your home before it disappears and how to outsource your debt obligations to the government.

And this set of advanced strategies for wealth creation is being offered for only $197.

To get your Creating Wealth Encyclopedia Book 1 complete with over 20 hours of audio, go to jasonhartman.com store if you.

Want to be able to sit back and collect checks every month just like a banker. Jason's Creating Wealth Encyclopedia series is for you. This show is produced by The Hartman Media Co. All rights reserved. For distribution or publication rights and media interviews, please visit www.hartmanmedia.com or email mediaartmanmedia.com Nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own and the host is acting on behalf of Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. Exclusively.