This is a special post for quick takes by CalmCobra. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Sorted by Click to highlight new quick takes since:

It doesn't seem like most EAs are interested in real estate investing (REI). Besides more riskier day trading, entrepreneurship and playing the lotto, REI done right garners significantly higher returns (think 20% and up, excluding equity, appreciation, depreciation recapture and capital gains). 

I focus on the cash on cash, CoC, return (REI without equity) when analyzing potential investment properties, and make goals with cash flow (e.g., net $300/mo per property after at least 20% CoC return).  My current goal is to attain $10k/mo cash flow within 12 years (again, after at least 20% CoC with most doors under anther's management). 

I use spreadsheets with PMT and IRR calculations, then double check with the DealCheck app/website. So far I only have one investment property, but I'm always going to open houses and analyzing potential deals. Self-storage seems to be booming. I'll probably eventually get more into commercial too. 

Anyway, I haven't seen much interest in REI in the EA community--despite higher returns. So I'm a bit perplexed. But the other half of me doesn't care and just wants to find a mentor.  

I don't think you can get anything remotely close to 20% return because nothing ever reliably earns a 20% return. The real estate market in aggregate has historically performed about as well as equities with somewhat lower risk. An individual's real estate investments will be riskier than equities due to lack of diversification. For a good post on this, see https://rhsfinancial.com/2019/05/01/better-investment-stocks-real-estate/

Do you understand the difference between cash on cash (CoC) return and ROI?

Because CoC return is all about reliably/monthly earning a return. The mortgage, capex, maintenance, insurance, taxes and vacancy reserve are put into the equation: 

(income - costs - mortgage)/(down payment + closing costs + rehab)

 

Detail

=(((totalMonthlyRent*(1-vacancyReserve)-mortgage-monthlyMaintenance-annualInsurance/12-annualTaxes/12)*12)/(downPayment+closingCosts+inspectionReport+estRehab/10)

Within the first year, I account for capital expenditures by fixing most everything and replacing old utilities with new. It's bundled into the estimated rehab variable and divided by 10 years. Then, for internal rate of return calculations, I figure $500/unit/year after those first 10 (considering warranties last about that long).

 

Example 

=(((600*(1-0%)+600*(1-10%))-438-120-149-48)*12)/(19200+4047+500+9230/10)

= 18.7% monthly CoC return 

 

This is my current and first property. Except, I naively got a 15-year mortgage instead of a 30-year. The bank just went with that choice. But hey, that's why I'm looking for a mentor. 

I was not previously familiar with the term cash-on-cash but it looks like you're saying you can earn a 20% return if you use ~5:1 leverage. In that case, sure, but that's a lot of leverage, and 20% is actually a pretty bad return at that much leverage. Historically, stocks would have returned about 40%.

 I disagree, 20% is a damn fine return. Yes,  the key is using leverage. (I doubt you assumed I was talking about buying properties with cash before.)

Do you do leverage  trading? On first thought, it scares me not having any equity. If leverage trading gets nearly quadruple decent regular returns, why isn't there EA discussion groups and such around that then? It seems significantly more risky. 

Second, the link is about real estate investment trusts. There is various figures and statistics about macro-level trends, but nothing really about residential, self-storage or renting out commercial buildings. It discusses "investment properties" solely in terms of appreciation and REITs.

So what is the difference between CoC and ROI? Besides how CoC doesn't factor in equity, CoC doesn't account for appreciation. Therefore, ROI will usually be higher than the CoC return.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Summary Following our co-founder Joey's recent transition announcement we're actively searching for exceptional leadership to join our C-level team and guide AIM into its next phase. * Find the full job description here * To apply, please visit the following link * Recommend someone you think could be a great fit here * Location: London strongly preferred. Remote candidates willing to work from London at least 3 months a year and otherwise overlapping at least 6 hours with 9 am to 5 pm BST will be considered. We are happy to sponsor UK work visas. * Employment Type: Full-time (35 hours) * Application Deadline: rolling until August 10, 2025 * Start Date: as soon as possible (with some flexibility for the right candidate) * Compensation: £45,000–£90,000 (for details on our compensation policy see full job description) Leadership Transition On March 15th, Joey announced he's stepping away from his role as CEO of AIM, with his planned last day as December 1st. This follows our other co-founder Karolina's completed transition in 2024. Like Karolina, Joey will transition to a board member role while we bring in new leadership to guide AIM's next phase of growth. The Opportunity AIM is at a unique inflection point. We're seeking an exceptional leader to join Samantha and Devon on our C-level team and help shape the next era of one of the most impactful organizations in the EA ecosystem. With foundations established (including a strong leadership team and funding runway), we're ready to scale our influence dramatically and see many exciting pathways to do so. While the current leadership team has a default 2026 strategic plan, we are open to a new CEO proposing radical departures. This might include: * Proposing alternative ways to integrate or spin off existing or new programs * Deciding to spend more resources trialling more experimental programs, or double down on Charity Entrepreneurship * Expanding geographically or deepening impact in existing region