42-year-old claims debt-free ownership of three properties

42-year-old claims debt-free ownership of three properties

An Excel spreadsheet is currently causing a stir online. It details how a 42-year-old employee went from living with his parents to accumulating three properties, two of them rented out, without ever taking out a loan. His recipe relies on three rules: choose a career with prospects, seize every job opportunity, and avoid debt. He argues that anyone of his age could have already retired. The problem is that the arithmetic presented has more holes than a sieve, and users were quick to point them out.

The first figure that raises eyebrows is the savings amount. According to his account, he managed to save €20,000 annually while renting a room for €300. When he bought his first property in 2011, he did so—at market bottom, he claims. Then came promotions, foreign assignments with allowances, and a salary rising from €20,000 to €55,000 gross. Everything fits if one believes there were no community fees, medical emergencies, layoffs, or unexpected bills in two decades.

What does it really cost to maintain three rental properties?

This is where things get interesting. The author insists there are no mortgages and that his spreadsheet includes all expenses. However, several readers ran the numbers and got different results. With accumulated savings of €160,000 and a purchase of €120,000, the remainder should be €40,000, not €60,000. A €20,000 discrepancy is striking in a table claiming surgical precision.

The discussion quickly shifts to hidden costs: taxes, notary fees, insurance, community charges, repairs, and vacancy periods. Anyone who has rented out a property knows that real estate isn't a free money machine; it generates income only if you can stomach surprises. The protagonist's story, however, describes a frictionless world where every decision works out and every asset performs smoothly.

The generation that arrived late to everything

The author admits his method might not work for younger people. This transforms the anecdote into a generational portrait. Born in 1982, he belongs to the last cohort able to buy housing before the market skyrocketed. Those who came after face entry prices their parents couldn't have imagined.

The conversation fills with bitter comparisons. Some note the previous generation had it easier: a house in town, a beach home, and three children raised on one salary. Others point out those coming behind have it much worse. In between, the protagonist insists he isn't a genius, just had "a minimum of luck" and avoided cancer. An argument that sounds like an excuse when coming from someone boasting three properties.

Is real estate the only way to save in Spain?

This question hovers over the entire debate. Against the rental strategy, some defend alternatives that are more liquid and less problematic: index funds, ETFs, even gold and silver. One participant claims to have accumulated €850,000 by age 40 combining precious metals and stocks, never buying a property for rent. Another recalls that 71% of retail investor accounts lose money with leveraged products, according to broker disclosures.

If there is consensus, it points to the starting point being the issue, not the vehicle. Those who started investing at 20 with a decent salary have a cushion today. Those who started at 35 with a mortgage and kids barely make ends meet. Meritocracy crumbles when comparing timelines.

The loneliness of the winner

There is a detail mentioned in passing that may be most revealing: he has no children. "That helps," he admits. He also acknowledges partnering up at 42 and living for years without a car, big trips, or social life. The price of his wealth isn't measured only in euros. It's measured in nights spent in shared rooms, dinners missed, and opportunities passed up.

A veteran forum user summarizes it bluntly: "You paid a very, very high price that our generation didn't have to pay." Another adds that without children or a partner, he too would be a millionaire, but "just as sad and depressed." Wealth, it suggests, doesn't always compensate for what is left behind.

In the end, the table remains, with its impeccable columns and unprovable assumptions. The author insists the numbers are real and critics simply don't know how to read. He might be right. Or he might have confused a spreadsheet with life itself. How many readers could replicate his method without something breaking along the way?