In less than a week, the value of his Wal-Mart Stores stock had dropped almost $3 billion, reducing his wealth to a mere $4.8 billion. “It’s paper anyway,” he told the Associated Press. “It was paper when we started and it’s paper afterward.”

Given the wrenching swings of the past two weeks, many of us may wish we could be so sanguine about our own losses. But even without a few extra billion dollars in the bank, there are useful lessons to be gleaned from the way the Waltons and other ultrarich families cope with investments and market volatility.

Just like us, the rich want to maintain their lifestyle, preserve wealth and have money for their heirs or philanthropy. And when it comes to investing, there are several ways the rest of us should take a cue from them:

• The very wealthy have a plan. Sam Walton’s plan started in the early 1950s, when, on the advice of his father-in-law, he set up a family partnership, made up of him, his wife, Helen, and their four children, to own his two variety stores. By doing that, he began planning his estate and building family wealth years before he opened the first Wal-Mart in 1962.

Nowadays, most very wealthy people have a team of advisers and an investing strategy in place that should work even when the worst imaginary case becomes real. Small investors, too, should have a comfortable investment process that works in good times and bad.

A financial adviser can be invaluable in helping you with this, but so can a trusted family member or friend who will help you stick to your plan when you start to doubt it.

• The very wealthy live below their means. Walton, who died in 1992, was famously frugal, driving an old pickup truck and flying coach. Many very wealthy people spend much more extravagantly, but even so, “most of our ultrawealthy clients have a lifestyle that is well below their means,” says Craig Rawlins, president of Harris myCFO Investment Advisory Services, which serves wealthy families.

When you don’t spend everything, he says, “you have a better opportunity to weather this volatility because you know there’s a cushion there.”

• The very wealthy value cash flow. One of the most painful lessons of 2008 was the recognition that we need to keep enough in cash or liquid investments to weather a stretch when the value of everything else is in flux. Martin Halbfinger, managing director, wealth management, at UBS, says every investor should have a “SWAN” account—for “sleep well at night.”

“That’s a different number for every investor,” he says, but you should have enough in bank accounts, bonds or other liquid investments that you can leave your stocks alone when market volatility defies logic.

Sturdy, dividend-paying stocks also can help. Annual dividends on the Walton family’s 1.68 billion shares of Wal-Mart stock add up to $2.45 billion a year, enough to buy plenty of groceries and just about anything else.

• The very wealthy focus on risk, not return. Larry Palmer, managing director, private wealth management, at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, said he has never had a client say, “My objective is to have my family wealth beat the S&P 500.” Rather, he says, clients focus on what kinds of risks they are taking with their portfolio.

The Walton family wealth long has been tied to its Wal-Mart stock, now valued at $83.6 billion. But Sam also bought the tiny Bank of Bentonville in 1961, and it is now part of the family-owned Arvest Bank, an $11.5 billion banking company. Walton Enterprises also owns a chain of small newspapers that, along with other interests, offer diversification and push the family’s estimated combined wealth close to $100 billion.

Small investors need to similarly manage their portfolios, making sure that their holdings of stock and other volatile investments aren’t so great that they are putting more at risk than they intended to.

• The very wealthy hang on. The super-rich don’t sell because they are fearful—though some may be selling right now for investment reasons, such as cutting the tax bite on holdings with big gains. The Walton family ownership of Wal-Mart stock hasn’t changed since late 2002, when some shares were transferred to charitable funds.

In that sense, Sam was spot on. Though the Walton family’s Wal-Mart shares have dropped by more than $10 billion since mid-May, until the stock is actually sold, the losses really are nothing more than paper.

Karen Blumenthal is the author of “Mr. Sam: How Sam Walton Built Wal-Mart and Became America’s Richest Man” (Viking).

Considering all the attention investment pros (and financial magazines) lavish on picking the right stocks and funds, I can understand why you might think superior investing ranks above all else when it comes to a `secure future and a comfortable retirement.

Savvy investing is certainly important — you don’t want to blow your savings on lousy funds or ineffectual strategies. And you’ll end up richer if you happen upon a winning investment. If you’d owned the Sequoia Fund for the past decade, for example, a $10,000 balance would have grown to more than $16,000 now, vs. $12,800 if you’d simply earned the market return.

But as a practical matter you can’t know in advance which fund or stock will beat the market — in fact, over the past 15 years, only 55% of U.S. equity funds did so, according to Morningstar. Rather than pinning your hopes on higher returns, I’d say boosting your savings rate is a surer way to improve your retirement prospects.

To see what I mean, check out this example. Let’s say you’re 35 years old, earn $60,000 a year, and sock away 10% of your salary (including your company match) into a 401(k) that’s already worth $75,000. And assume you’re stashing your retirement moolah in a diversified portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds.

You’re doing a reasonable, though not spectacular, job of preparing for retirement. Your savings rate is decent, though it could be better. As for investing, you’re hardly a slouch, but ideally you should be devoting more of your 401(k) to stocks.

The key is starting with an overall plan — that is, deciding on the appropriate asset allocation, or blend of stock and bond funds that makes sense given your age and stomach for risk.

Indeed, when the folks at T. Rowe Price ran the numbers on this saving and investing regimen, they projected that you’d have a 68% chance of accumulating enough money to retire in 30 years on 70% of your pre-retirement income and not deplete your funds until age 92.

Not bad. But if you could do just one thing to improve your outlook, what would it be? Save more or earn more?

You can’t, of course, say you’d prefer an 8% annual return instead of 6% and turn a dial higher to get it. The investing world doesn’t work that way. So to try to earn more you have to invest more aggressively.

In this example, both increasing your savings rate from 10% to 12% and shifting to a more growth-oriented portfolio that’s 80% stocks and 20% bonds –an appropriate mix for a 35-year-old — will boost your chances of retirement success. But saving more has a larger effect than earning a higher return would.

In the real world you’re not limited to one move. You can bump up the amount you save and improve a sub par investing strategy. Do both those things — which, ideally, you would — and you can feel even more confident about achieving a secure retirement.

In theory, later in your career, when you’re more likely to have a large balance in your retirement accounts, a relatively modest increase in your rate of return could boost the size of your nest egg more than upping your savings rate would.

On a $500,000 portfolio, for example, an additional half percentage point of return would translate to an extra $2,500 a year, more than someone earning $100,000 would get by moving from a 10% to a 12% savings rate.

Trouble is, the more risk you take in pursuit of loftier gains, the more your returns will jump up and down from year to year, and the harder your portfolio will get hammered during market setbacks. Take a 55-year-old a decade from retirement — for that person, a pedal-to-the-metal approach is no help. Because you have less time to recover from a setback, it slightly cuts your chances of reaching your goals.

That said, you still have one way to effectively earn more on your portfolio –without ratcheting up risk: Pare investment fees.

Annual expenses for stock funds average 1.5%, while the yearly tab for bond funds comes in at roughly 1%. By opting for low-cost options like index funds and exchange-traded funds, which often charge less than 0.5% annually, you may be able to reduce your costs by anywhere from a half to a full percentage point a year. Over the course of a career, that can boost the eventual size of your nest egg a good 10% to 20%.

Finally, there’s one more compelling reason not to rely on astute investing. Given the sluggish growth and onerous levels of government debt here and abroad, even the most savvy investors may have to settle for relatively modest returns. That could be a major problem if your retirement security hinges on racking up big gains. Boosting your savings rate is a surer way to increase the ultimate size of your portfolio.

So by all means, make sure you’re investing as well as you can. If you really want to improve your prospects, though, save more.

The stock market has always been risky way and is more so today, as the world braces for an impending recession. In times like these, even bonds carry a high risk. But all is not lost. All you need to do is think outside the box.

To avoid the perils of a tumultuous market, and to still keep your money safe, here are some alternative investments.

Classic Car

Are you a car enthusiast? If so, it may be time to put more money into this “hobby.” When you invest in “classic” cars you are getting the best of both worlds. Not only is this a lot of fun, but you are putting your money into an investment that is safer than the stock market.

It’s important to note, however, that not all cars are considered classics. Just like any other type of investment, you need to do your homework. If you don’t, you could end up buying a car that depreciates in value as opposed to growing over the long term.

Sports memorabilia

Just like cars, many people (men in particular) love sports. From soccer to basketball to cycling, among others, there is a sport that probably gets your adrenalin flowing. Investing in sports memorabilia is easier today than ever before. Not only are there many outlets for purchasing memorabilia, but there are several well known services that authenticate these souvenirs. So it is easy to locate a large inventory of memorabilia and make a confident purchase. An astute investment linked to a sports star or team could soar in the future.

Works of Art

Some pieces of ‘art’ are only worth a few dollars. On the other hand, some paintings and other creations can be sold for millions. Many pieces of art have the potential to increase in value as the years go by. Just imagine what an early piece of Banksy’s or Hirst’s work would be worth today!

There are many types of fine art to consider, with some of the most popular including paintings, giclées, sculptures, posters and prints. Buying art for your home is an emotional decision – you want to get something that looks good and shows off your tastes. Investing, however, should not be based on your emotions. Instead, focus on the pieces that are best for you from a financial point of view. Also, make sure you browse the market and thoroughly research any piece before buying anything.

Wine

Is wine a good investment? It is a question that pops up time and again, probably without a conclusive answer.

Still, if you are a wine connoisseur or somebody who is looking for an alternative investment, this is something to consider. Vintage wine is in high demand, particularly in the rising Asian economies, but supply is limited. Hence, its value appreciates. Even when the stock market resembles a roller coaster ride, those who invest in wine generally find things to be quite steady.

Although wine investors have every right to be wine drinkers, it is not quite necessary. Even if you don’t know the difference between Burgundy and Bordeaux, wine can be a great alternative investment so long as you take adequate care. Make sure you have access to a temperature-controlled storage facility to keep your investment in perfect condition. Alternatively, you can invest into a managed wine investment fund, which, for many, is the easier route to take.

I grew up next to a forest. I remember, as a child, hiking through the trees with our two golden retrievers in tow and, hilariously, panning for gold in the stream. I started with high hopes. I saw plenty of gold — all fool’s, alas.

Investors, too, have been hunting for riches in the forests — and these days, they’re also seeking shelter there. Market guru Jeremy Grantham, whose investment firm, GMO, has historically been bearish about stocks, keeps a large chunk of his personal portfolio in timber — seeing it as a valuable defensive investment in a tumultuous market like this one. For similar reasons, Harvard University has invested in timberland for many years. And Boston financial-services giant John Hancock owns 5.3 million acres of timberland around the world on behalf of institutions and rich clients.

There are good reasons for all this interest. The correlation between timber and other assets is low, which means timber is not very likely to lose value when, say, stocks are tumbling. Over the past two decades, the benchmark timber index, tracked by the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, has produced a tenfold return.

And it’s a steady performer in tough economic times. As Grantham once wrote, timberland “has had a history of rising in all great equity bear markets.” He adds that it’s “very safe: If the sun shines and it rains, the trees grow about on schedule.”

But there’s just one problem. Unless you are a major institution or a very wealthy individual, investing in timberland is in most cases pretty difficult. John Hancock requires a minimum investment of $5 million. Other TIMOs — or Timberland Investment Management Organizations — may let you in for less, but you’ll still need hundreds of thousands of dollars. The money gets tied up. And you may not get much geographic diversification, either.

What are the alternatives? Many investors will turn to timberland and forestry mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. But you need to watch what you’re buying. The funds invest across the timber and forest-products sector. And that means they invest in a lot of companies — paper mills and so on — that aren’t really timberland plays. They are manufacturing companies, with expensive factories and lots of staff, that happen to own and use timber. Rayonier, for example, is held by many timber mutual funds, but it’s a diversified company. Last year it made most of its money from specialty chemicals.

So where can you go? “If I just wanted timber exposure,” says Daniel Cooney, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, “Plum Creek would be the stock. They have the widest geographic exposure. They have minimal manufacturing.”

Plum Creek is a real estate investment trust that owns 6.7 million acres of forest across 19 U.S. states. Unlike a private TIMO, it gives you wide geographic diversification, and you can trade in and out easily through the stock market. It also pays dividends, and these are taxed lightly, as long-term capital gains, because most of the earnings come from harvesting a long-term capital asset: trees.

Naturally, there are caveats. It’s just one company, and it’s riskier to expose yourself to a single company’s ups and downs. It gets little direct benefit from China’s building boom, as few of its forests are in the Pacific Northwest. Instead, Plum Creek is heavily exposed to the dismal U.S. housing market. Recent earnings disappointed. At $39, the stock isn’t cheap. The dividend yield, around 4.3 percent, is low by historical standards.

There are alternatives for the adventurous: Cambium and Phaunos, two closed-end timberland trusts that are run from the U.S. but are listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Cambium is smaller, with around $140 million in net assets. Most of its forests are in two countries: the U.S. and Brazil. Phaunos is bigger and more global. That makes it look more appealing. It has $595 million in net assets and owns forests from Latin America to China to East Africa. The U.S. accounts for just 7 percent of the portfolio. Phaunos investment chief Liane Luke, a John Hancock veteran, says forests outside the U.S. are cheaper and offer better — although perhaps riskier — investment returns. Half the forests are mature.

Phaunos’s earnings per share tripled last year, to 4 cents. The fund has about $40 million in cash and just launched its first dividend, at 2 cents a share.

Both Cambium and Phaunos are structured as closed-end funds, which trade like stocks and see their prices change throughout the trading day. And shares in both trusts are priced at hefty discounts. Cambium recently sold for 90 cents a share, 20 percent below its net asset value. Phaunos traded for 75 cents, more than 30 percent belowits net asset value of $1.11.

There is no reason to fear investments listed in London, where corporate governance and disclosure are perfectly good. But you’ll need a broker that can trade international stocks. (Oddly, because Phaunos trades in dollars, few discount brokers will handle it; Luke even opened a Fidelity brokerage account so she could invest personally.) Why is it listed in London? Luke says the regulations here in the U.S. are just too much to deal with. A sad state of affairs.

I wish there were more mainstream ways of adding some timber to my portfolio. Phaunos, Cambium and Plum Creek are among the few and are worth watching. But it’s still a challenge finding gold in the woods.

The short-term returns for some of these products look pretty fantastic. The biggest of the bunch, the iPath S&P VIX Short-Term Futures ETN, gained 47% in the month ended Sept. 9, according to fund-tracker Morningstar, Inc. The most straightforward VIX-linked investments—those that don’t offer amplified or inverse returns—gained 38% on average in the same period.

Often called “the fear index,” the VIX measures how rocky investors expect the market to be, based on the prices of options contracts. (The more stock prices are expected to swing, in either direction, the more expensive options contracts become.)

But the dazzling performance may blind some investors to the nuances of these investments. The VIX has no intrinsic value. The futures contracts it holds only rise in value when investors think fluctuations will be more extreme tomorrow than they are today. Investors’ fears and speculation are themselves a volatile asset, notes Timothy Strauts, an ETF analyst with Morningstar, and the VIX “just oscillates from fear to calm and back.”

Because of how the funds are designed, it is also difficult to make long-term gains betting on fears of volatility. Consider that the VIX was recently at 43, up from 27 a year ago. Yet over the same period, an investor who bought and held the iPath ETN would have lost 55%. That is because if volatility rises or even stays flat, the underlying options contracts get more expensive. To keep up, the ETFs are constantly selling cheap contracts in favor of more expensive ones, and investors who hold the funds for more than a few days notch those losses.

These products are designed for short-term traders, says Tim Edwards, a vice president at Barclays Capital. If an investor expected volatility to spike, say, after the Federal Reserve meets on Sept. 20, he would typically buy a VIX-linked fund a few days before, and hold it for less than a week. Essentially, making a profit through a VIX-linked product requires perfect market timing—a skill that history shows is in short supply.

The spread between spot platinum and gold prices hit a discount of $31 (U.S.) an ounce last week, its lowest in nearly 26 years, as economic concerns boosted the safe-haven appeal of gold but weighed on industrial metal platinum.

It quickly returned to a premium of $32, still well below an average of $205.80 since 1985, but the dark clouds over the global economy may still dim platinum’s longer-term outlook.

LOW SPREAD MEANS CHEAP INVESTMENT

Gold rallied nearly 21 per cent from the end of June to a record high of $1,813.79 an ounce on Aug. 11, as a debt crisis in Europe and a downgrade of the credit rating in the United States drove investors to bullion.

The drop in the platinum-gold spread offers a chance for investors seeking exposure to the safe-haven appeal of gold but uncomfortable with gold’s lofty prices.

“The issue had been when gold went outright above platinum, there were people asking is it time to buy platinum, is it looking undervalued?” said Societe Generale analyst David Wilson.

“I guess if enough people believe that, then it is. It doesn’t really matter what the fundamental realities are.”

Demand for platinum ETFs is outstripping buying of other precious metals-backed products in percentage terms this year. Platinum inflows are up 9.35 per cent, compared to 5.8 per cent in gold.

Stagnating supply growth and high production costs are adding to the mix of reasons to build up platinum positions, said Dominic Schnider, executive director of UBS Wealth Management research.

“If you look at production costs, these costs have geared towards $1,750 an ounce,” he said. “There’s no motivation to expand production if you don’t see margins expand.”

History is also against a return to discount. Even during the height of the 2008 financial crisis the spread was only in negative territory for a couple of days. You have to go back to 1991 to find a sustained period where platinum has been worth less than gold.

UNCERTAINTY: PLATINUM LOSES, GOLD WINS

The investment frenzy may push platinum higher in the short term, but the metal remains prone to economic downturns and heavily exposed to Europe’s car sector, which uses mostly diesel engines that require autocatalysts made mainly from platinum.

“The outlook for platinum in dollar terms is … less bullish with platinum recording lower highs and lower lows over the last few months to establish a fairly clear downtrend,” said David Jollie, analyst at Mitsui Precious Metals.

“This more accurately reflects the change in market consensus from one of positivity about global growth to concerns over possible double dip recessions in Europe and North America.”

So long as investors feel nervous about the global economic growth, gold’s appeal will continue. With U.S. interest rates set to stay low through 2012 and the euro zone debt crisis spreading, there is no lack of encouragement for gold bugs.

“Across the age cohort, people have decided that they want to have greater access to their money, and it’s got to be ATM access,” says William Finnegan, senior managing director of U.S. retail marketing for Boston-based MFS. “They want it in the bank.”

The survey also found that Generation Y investors (those 18 to 30 years old) allocate even more to cash—30 percent, on average.
“I think it’s probably driven by fear, and it’s driven by prior experience,” Finnegan says. “When you look at the past decade [when] a lot of these folks came of age in investing—bubbles and bursts, that was their experience.” Finnegan blames what many refer to as the “lost decade” for stocks—2000 through 2009—during which the Standard & Poor’s 500 index finished in the red.

Overall, nearly 3 in 5 investors cite fear about volatility or needing money someday as a reason for holding high or increasing amounts of cash. Respondents’ other top concerns for the next 12 months included rising healthcare costs (78 percent), the growing federal deficit (72 percent), and increases in taxes and legislative gridlock (both 66 percent). A quarter of those surveyed said they liquidated a portion of their portfolio in 2010 or 2011 because of concerns about the market, with 52 percent of Gen Y increasing their portfolio’s cash stakes, the most of any age group.

Despite increased volatility in the stock market (the Dow Jones Industrial Average saw its sixth-worst loss ever on Monday followed by its 10th-largest gain on Tuesday), investors should be wary of being too conservative, which could mean missing out on rallies. “My concern is, ‘Are they too conservative, and will they reach their long-term goals?’” Finnegan says.

Another problem: These days, the return on cash is pennies on the dollar. In December 2008, the Federal Reserve set the federal funds rate at virtually zero, and the Fed has left it there ever since. “Because yields are so low, basically you’re getting nothing on cash,” says Adam Bold, founder of the Mutual Fund Store, an investment firm based in Overland Park, Kan. For instance, the average 1-year CD yields only 0.87 percent, according to Bankrate.com.

Bold says cash should play a role in almost every investor’s portfolio—except for the most aggressive investors—but he generally only allocates up to about 20 percent cash for even his most conservative clients. “I think there’s a very high fear factor out there, which is different from the economic reality,” Bold says. “Stocks can be moved in the short term by headlines, but after all is said and done, they revert to economic reality, and corporate earnings have been excellent.”

“After all, no matter what happens to paper markets, physical commodities will still be in demand,” said Jason Schenker, president and chief economist at Prestige Economics LLC.

Gold prices are up 28% year to date. Other commodities have seen impressive gains as well, despite the bloodbath in the U.S. equities markets and often grim news on the global economy.

Year to date, silver’s up 31%, corn has added 13%, coffee’s up 10%. Heating oil’s added 13% and gasoline’s up 18%.

“Industrial metals, precious metals, and energy commodities are all real assets that are consumed,” said Schenker. “They are also much more homogeneous and fungible than other specific investments of a given financial asset class. As such, they are all a bit safer in the long run.”

Over the past 12 months, the Thomson Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index , which tracks 19 commodities representing all commodity sectors, has climbed more than 20%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up just 5.5% for the same period.

The “safe” commodities are those with consistent demand such as food, those with inelastic supply that can’t easily expand to meet rising demand, including coffee and cocoa, and metals with restricted supply locations such as platinum and palladium, said Christopher Ecclestone, a strategist at Hallgarten & Company LLC.

“The most dangerous commodities are those that have run up on purely financial factors,” he said, adding that gold and silver have led that pack. “Any removal of liquidity can cause a slump.”

In a class by itself

The implication that gold and silver may be “dangerous” commodities would certainly be hard for some investors to swallow. The words “safe haven” in the commodities world has been synonymous with gold — and silver too.

“Safe haven, to me, means that [the investment] will hold up if the economy tanks,” said Chris Mayer, editor of Capital & Crisis. “I can’t say that is true for any other commodity.”

Gold and silver were among the very few markets that managed to post gains on Thursday, with prices for gold up 1.6% as the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 3.7%.

“Nothing rivals gold’s safe-haven appeal at the moment,” said Evan Smith, co-manager of the U.S. Global Investors Global Resources Fund. “Gold’s drivers are financial not industrial use, so it is going to be insulated from fluctuations or downgrades in growth,” while the bulk of copper and oil usage is industrial so those commodities are “much more susceptible to swings in economic growth.”

And with economic growth seeing a slowdown around the globe, investors in economically linked commodities do have a lot to worry about.

“Many commodities are particularly vulnerable to a slowdown or double dip,” with copper, iron ore, coal, lead, zinc and nickel likely among them, said Mayer.

It’s “no surprise that China is a huge buyer of these — on the order of 35%-50% of world consumption depending on the commodity,” he said. “China is slowing down too so it makes sense that these commodities would be hard hit.”

I am not sure how accurate that statistic is, but there does appear to be some truth in that statement and it does capture my attention, as I am sure it has many others looking to enter the real estate game as a means of wealth creation.

Perhaps you’re considering buying your first rental property as an investment. You’ve read books by Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki, attended a few seminars, and are now ready to take the plunge. Or perhaps you’re the seasoned investor looking to diversify your portfolio or leverage the equity on an existing home. Either way here are a few things to consider.

Eligible properties:

• Maximum four units if multi-family

• Purchases, new construction, and existing properties

Non-eligible properties:

• Rooming houses

• Time share units

• Rental pools

• Commercial/industrial zoned properties.

Other Details:

• Purchase with as little as 20 per cent down payment.

• Refinance up to 80 per cent of the property’s current value.

• Eligible for a line of credit with interest-only payments based on reduced loan-to-value.

• Corporate entities eligible with personal guarantee.

• Amortization up to 30 years.

An experienced mortgage professional that has worked with rental properties before can assist with determining the right structure for this endeavor.

Of course, there are other items to consider as well, such as if you manage the property on your own or if you hire a professional management company.

The variable costs involved to maintain the property (maintenance, vacancy contingency, etc.) should also be considered.

Additionally, if you are considering becoming a landlord, you will want to know your rights and the rights of your tenants

Russ’ story is one amazing success story—from working in a slaughter house, earning $5 an hour; he successfully became one of America’s youngest millionaires. By the age of twenty seven, he already owned millions worth of properties. But how did Russ Whitney become one of the youngest American millionaires? Here’s his story.

Russ Whitney was born on November 18, 1955, in a small town in Long Island. He was raised by his dad and aunt. They moved to Queens, New York when Russ was still very young and he grew up there. Russ dropped out of high school. He got married and to earn a living, he worked at a slaughterhouse. But Russ wanted more from the life he was living. He strived to learn more ways to earn money.

He read many books and he took courses which offered ways to make money fast. Most of these “quick money” schemes didn’t work for Russ but he kept on trying. His life began to take a different turn when he read a book about real estate. That was the start of a new life for him and his wife.

By the age of twenty, he invested in what would be his first real estate property. He made money from that venture but he didn’t stop there. He invested wisely on more properties. When he turned 23 years old, he decided to quit his slaughter house job. Most of his friend and relatives didn’t think this was a wise idea, and advised him not to go through with it. But nor his friends or his family were able to stop him. He just knew that his passion as well as career lies in investing in various properties.

By the age of twenty-five, he moved his family—his wife and two children—to Florida. This was a wise move as the Cape Coral market was starting to significantly move up. He decided to start over. And in just 18 months, he managed to take his $1,000 investment and turn it into $4.7 million. It was this venture that led him to develop his own, unique system of investing. He has written books about the system and most of them are bestsellers. His bestselling books are Building Wealth, Millionaire Real Estate Mentor, and The Millionaire Real Estate Mindset. He also developed some of the most popular home study courses such as Starting from Zero and the Building Wealth System.