@scottalanmiller said in How Do You Replace Active Directory?:

@Mario-Jakovina said in How Do You Replace Active Directory?:

We had Device RDS CALs, and things are very simple with them.

Can be, if you have locked down devices. But that's not related to the AD issue. AD isn't to make the CALs simpler.

Scott, you said that RDS requires, AD - and it is not true.
I am just saying, that RDS does not require AD and RDS is very simple with Device CAL,s and without AD - there is no "AD issue" in this scenario.

By the way - we did not locked down devices - devices just access RDS via VPN (or LAN)

@scottalanmiller Maybe it is complicated if you have User RDS CALs.
We had Device RDS CALs, and things are very simple with them.

@scottalanmiller said in How Do You Replace Active Directory?:

@Mario-Jakovina said in How Do You Replace Active Directory?:

@scottalanmiller said in How Do You Replace Active Directory?:

RDS, sadly, has AD as a requirement. Although you can localize it and make it irrelevant.

What do you mean with "RDS has AD as requirement"
In my previous company, most of us used RDS, and we did not used AD

You have to, RDS won't deploy without it. When you go to install RDS it checks for AD and won't enable until you add it.

Well it is not true, because RDS is still there, and AD services are not deployed.
(I checked it)

@scottalanmiller said in How Do You Replace Active Directory?:

RDS, sadly, has AD as a requirement. Although you can localize it and make it irrelevant.

What do you mean with "RDS has AD as requirement"
In my previous company, most of us used RDS, and we did not used AD

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Mario-Jakovina said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

Even Warren Buffet once said that he did not wanted to invest in IT companies because he did not understood that business.

That's hilarious because IT is just "business". To say he doesn't understand IT means the same as saying he doesn't understand business. IT involves tech, but IT itself is purely a business aspect and a part of every business. Whether his companies are IT themselves or just have IT as part of them, every investment involves IT and IT is a part of all aspects of business.

I thing most people will say that Microsoft or Google are IT companies.
And most will not say the same thing for Volkswagen, or Coca Cola.
I do not find that "hilarious", although I understand what you are talking about.

@Dashrender said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

I suppose renting literally goes back to kings and queens - cause they owned everything, the peasants had to pay the kingdom..

Generally pretty good reasoning.
Basically, in feudal age, aristocracy lived from renting their land to peasants. In industrial age, different manufacturing businesses become more important as value (and source of income and profit) than pure ownership of land and things soon changed to capitalism (capitalism was economically more efficient than feudalism)

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

Those are big emotional reasons why people foolishly invest without evaluating logically, yes. Absolutely.

Of course. But people have right to pay/buy things they like to own, or things they feel safe to invest. They do not have to invest in something that proves to be most profitable in the long term.
People are not hired proffessionals when they decide about their private investments. It is OK that they spend money where they like to spend it.
(I am not saying that they should not learn to invest smarter)

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

The only value to him comes from the investment value. That humans tend to be emotional about their homes causes bad financial decisions and is actually often said to an important reason to rent not buy, buying only has a good chance of being healthy for you and not crippling your life if you can be unemotional and remember that it is just an investment option and you have to be flexible with it to not get burned.

First sentence is completely wrong.
I agree with second sentence.

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

That he CAN live in it is misleading. He can equally live in a rental. The only value to him comes from the investment value. That humans tend to be emotional about their homes causes bad financial decisions and is actually often said to an important reason to rent not buy, buying only has a good chance of being healthy for you and not crippling your life if you can be unemotional and remember that it is just an investment option and you have to be flexible with it to not get burned.

The term "real value" in economic terms means tha you can actual use that asset in life - you can live in a house, or you can use gold as a metal...
If you compare it to financial assets - financial assets do not have "real value" - they only have financial value. If nobody wants to buy shares or bonds that you want to sell, you can't use it.
That is definition of economic term "real value" (it is not my personal term)

As my more general contribution to this topic:

If someone is not financial expert, he may prefer to invest in his own home because:

1. It has real value for him (that's why it is called real estate) - he can live in it.
2. He understand what he is buying (non-financial people may not understand what they are buying when they buy Tesla stocks or bonds at a certain price)

It is wise that people invest in things they understand, not in things they do not understand.
Even Warren Buffet once said that he did not wanted to invest in IT companies because he did not understood that business.

I think these two points above are also big reason why lot of folks like to invest in ownership of home. (also some others, like to be certain you can stay at a certain place for long time...)

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

So like anything real estate can make money. So can the lotto. Real estate is much safer than the lotto. But it's all a sliding scale. Stocks are the farthest to the conservative side. Bonds are closer to the casinos.

Scott, I agree with lots of prejudices about real estate you are talking about.
But also, you write a lot of purely wrong statements here. Stocks are not conservative, and bonds are not casinos - on contrary:

1. Bonds are lesk risky investment then stocks (that's why stocks offer chance for bigger profits, that is why owners capital is more expensive than financing with bonds)
2. Real estate is less risky then stocks (on average). That is why income on real estate is so low.
Another ilustration - you will always get better mortgage loan ratio for average real estate (long term loan/value), then you can get margin loans for stock trading (long term loan/value)

If you claim different please make your arguments clear.

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Mario-Jakovina said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

But just this one more now:
Can you answer to what market are you comparing real estate market?
Beacuse bonds and shares are completely different things with very different risks (if you are comparing to that)

IN the financial world, all of these are financial vehicles. They are specifically always compared to each other because it is the sole comparisons to make.

Bonds are the highest risk. Real estate the middle. Stocks the lowest. Stocks are the only major investment vehicle to routinely outpace inflation and make money through the vehicle alone. Real estate and bonds are "losing" investments that you can only make money (on average) through trading against the deltas rather than the value of the assets. So with stocks, you can make money by investing. With real estate or bonds you assume you can only make money through trading.

The poor, especially in America, are always taught the opposite because it heavily helps investors control the profitability of the markets. They want the poor classes to hold bonds and real estate so that highly profitable and safer stock assets are available for the rich to trade. In the investment world, that real estate and bonds are super high risk that can't beat inflation is common knowledge, But if you learn investing in high school they will always claim stocks are risky. But stocks on average are the safest asset to hold by no small margin.

I am financial expert (not IT expert), I don't need basic financial explanation.

You say real esatate "lost against an index by 5-10%"
I ask "to what market are you comparing real estate market"
You do not answer to my question directly - instead you send me "walls of text"
It seems like you do not want discussion?

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

Can I afford a Ferrari? No, I can't afford that.

Comparing luxury cars to basic housing is not appropriate here.
In 19th century, lot of people migrated to USA to earn for basic living.
In 1st half of 20th century, lot of people from my country (Croatia) migrated to USA (and Latin America) to earn for basic living.
They did not "choose" not to buy homes, they just did not have a chance to buy it (not even with bank loans)
Comparing that with Ferraris is ... (I want to stay polite)

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

That implies that it lost against an Index by 5-10% which means compared to the reasonable market baseline, the real estate game loses a lot.

Scott, you write lot of things and then it is hard for me to answer to all.
But just this one more now:
Can you answer to what market are you comparing real estate market?

Beacuse bonds and shares are completely different things with very different risks (if you are comparing to that)

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

But in financial terms, being unable to afford something is a form of not wanting. That's how that term is used financially.

Sorry, Scott, but this is "crazy to say" if I say in your terms.
I need to go to work now...

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

Right, that was the entire point of the post. Because offline there was a strong argument that buying was basically a guaranteed windfall and that only crazy situations could not make you lots of money and that any statistics should show that you just get crazy rich by owning property. But reality is anything but that. On average, over all time, owning property is a struggle to be profitable.

I agree with you a lot here.

You just need to have in mind that keeping the value against inflation is not so small thing.
Cash have a HUGE weakness here.

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

Pretending that the minority choice is "almost" the majority choice is crazy.

You have no proof that it was minority choice, as I explained in my previous post.
Actually, I claim that majority in 19th century would choose to own

@Dashrender said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

How do rentals come into being?

Renting is normal for every assets.
If someone has extra appartment, and I want to use one, we can either sell/buy or rent.

Renting is not universaly better or worse than owning. It depends on your personal situation (plans, desires, financial abilities...)

Same for money. If you need money, you go to bank, and they rent you a money (interest is renting income for money)

Some people who have extra money invest in real estates for renting (that is main part of this topic)

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Pete-S good info. I kind of forgot that, but I've seen that before. Home ownership for the bulk of society is a relatively recent thing. For a long time, something like 1% of England owned all the homes and everyone else has to rent.

England was feudal country and global imperial country with rich aristocracy. So it is common that small percent of aristocracy owned almost all of the real estate.
It was not choice for other 99% of population

USA has completely different history of housing.

@Pete-S
I think we should understand few things, for USA home ownership rates from 1890.-1940.:

1. Number of owned units (not rented) rose from 6,1 million in 1890. to 15,2 million in 1940. - thats 2,5x more units owned
2. Much smaller percent of people have had an oportunity to choose between buying and renting. Mortgage loans were not broadly available to working class before WW2. Retail sector in commercial banking developed with IT developement and cheaper data and financial processing in banks. So
3. Many people (now and before) buy homes later then they would like to, because they want to save more money for buying, or they wait for better or safer jobs etc.

I want to say that statistical percentage of ownerhip does not tells us what people prefer, they just show us actual situation.