Tag Archives: 7million

What’s the best financial move that you’ve made?

Posted on by
13

Michael asks What was the best financial move you’ve made so far? and then tells this story about his car:

I’ve concluded my best financial move to date has been my decision to keep cars for very long periods of time. I drove my first car for over seven years before it died. My second car just passed 100,000 miles this last weekend and is over nine years old.  So, here I am in my late thirties and I’m still on my second car.

Having no car payment during 9 of the last 14 years has allowed me to spend more in other areas of my life where I value such spending while still permitting me to save substantially for my future.

What an excellent question!

I’ll tell you my best financial move, then perhaps you can share yours?

I have a few ‘best financial move’ candidates (including moving to the USA, selling out just before the Great Recession, and others that I will tell you about some other time), but I can pin my ‘best’ financial move – not my biggest, but my best from a pure financial strategy point of view – down to one:

My accountant talked me into buying my own building (I had a small’ish call center operation but was renting office space at the time).

Making the purchase was very tight, financially, as the business wasn’t making a lot of money (there was a bit of juggling to come up with the cash for the deposit and making the monthly payments!). I really sweated as I was making the bids at the onsite auction (that’s how most properties are sold in my home town).

[AJC: Property valuation technique # 1: Q: How did I know how much to pay? A: I didn’t! But, I did know who I was bidding against (very important to know who your ‘opposition’ is) … a property developer. Logic told me that he would not buy for more that true current value, because it would be reasonable to expect him to buy-rehab-sell or buy-rebuild-sell. If – on the other hand – I intended to buy/use/hold, then it stands to reason that I could afford to pay AT LEAST as much as him. So, I just kept bidding until he stopped, and ended up paying just $1,000 more than his highest bid.]

To backtrack a little, I had already decided that I would buy prime real-estate in prime location, instead of buying a cheap building in an industrial area (typical for call centers, to keep costs low).

So, instead of spending, say $500k or so on a cheap industrial-area building, that’s how I found myself spending $1.35 mill up front at that auction and another $500k (100% financed) on the rehab and fitout, once I closed on the deal.

Why?

Well, I saw two major benefits:

1. It was a show-case building that I thought would be my ‘shop front’ for our ‘Fortune 500’-type corporate clients, making them think we were bigger (therefore better/safer to deal with than our opposition) than we really were, and

2. I guessed that it would have great resale or redevelopment value down the line.

As things would turn out, this was one of those rare occasions when I was right … on both fronts!

Our business grew substantially in that building with many a deal completed in our own board room.

[AJC: Once the Internet era arrived circa 2000, we created a fully web-enabled system – way ahead of its time – at which point it became advantageous for us to make our sales at our clients own premises. Once they saw the drop-dead gorgeous – by 2000 standards – web-enabled charts and graphs, they virtually signed our standard contract on the spot! Our office could have been in a garbage dump then, and it would no longer have mattered. Oh, good times … good times!]

In doing so, I avoided 5 years of rent, reduced my taxes by $500k (because of the rehab), paid down about $500k of the principal, and eventually sold the  building for $2.4 million.

Once business picked up (again, partly because of the marketing / credibility benefits of such a professionally fitted out building in such a prime location) I barely noticed the payments, and probably would simply have raised my personal spending had some of the profits not gone into the mortgage and rehab repayments.

Instead, after 5 years of mostly tax-deductible ‘forced savings’ I walked away with what felt like an extra $1.5 million in my pocket. Not my grandest move, as things would turn out, but certainly my (financially) most astute …

… I encourage every business owner to do the same!

So, what’s your best – not necessarily your grandest – financial move?

Beating the ‘more’ bug!

Posted on by
1

Do you have the ‘more’ bug?

I certainly do, and I think that most of us do … in fact, I’m so sure of it, because I see hundreds of blogs and books solely aimed at eradicating the disease with drastic remedies such as self-flagellating frugality and anorexic debt diets.

Kind of reminds me of how we used to treat ourselves with blood-letting, hole-in-head-drilling, and leeching – actually, all still legitimate remedies in a tiny minority of real-world cases – because we didn’t know any better.

In those days, a ‘real’ doctor, prescribing a drug that they had discovered would have been seen as a heretic or master of the ‘black arts’ (Louis Pasteur, anybody?).

But, I’m getting ahead of myself … first, here’s how Scott (a doctor, plenty of disposable income, so he’s a prime candidate) describes the symptoms:

I think a big dragon that we all face is that human nature of wanting more. We all seem to do it to some degree or another. We’ll live in a 150k-200k house(which was probably an amazing home to our grandparents standards) and while there, we imagine that million dollar pad. Once we get that, we need a 5 million dollar one, etc..etc..and our number continues to climb with the chronic discontent and needing more.

As Scott says, it’s not such much a ‘bug’ as a human condition: to always want more.

To get a little metaphysical: if you were the Ultimate Higher Power and you wanted to design an environment with endless conflict (all the way up from a personal level to a global level), you would fill it with little creatures that you ‘program’ to always want ‘more’. And, you would give them the tools (opposable thumbs, a modicum of intelligence, and inventiveness) to ensure that they create an endless stream of upscaled ‘stuff’ to constantly fuel that desire.

What Eternal fun! 😉

Assuming that the ‘more’ bug is curable … or at least manageable … how do you deal with this seemingly insatiable desire for ‘more’?

Well, if it really is a disease or condition, then I’m not sure how easy it is to switch off the ‘more’ switch; maybe a 12 Step Program for Wants (might be a great online/offline business here for any psychologists who have a side interest in personal finance)?

But, if it is real – and, manageable – then another strategy might be to build in gradual spending/lifestyle increases into your budget. Allow the ‘disease’, but control it …

For example, I drive a BMW M3 Convertible (in Australia, this is a USD$200k car, due to low volumes, importation costs, and exorbitant luxury vehicle taxes) but I really WANT a Ferrari ($500k++).

So, I have given myself a target:

Develop and/or cash out (for a certain amount over purchase price) on my development sites and I ‘reward’ myself with the Ferrari (not as simple as that: I will also need a day-to-day car, so figure a $150k Audi S6 or Maserati Quattroporte, in addition to the Ferrari … repeat every 5 to 8 years). I think that some of the Sudden Money strategies that I posted about recently are ideal for managing this.

Another way to deal with this was suggested by Robert Kiyosaki: he said that he, too, wanted a Ferrari. His wife said that he could only buy one if he generated the income to cover it. So, he bought a self-storage business and used the income to fund the payments on the car … I’m OK with this: even though he’s funding the car, rather than paying cash, the capital is in an income-producing asset – one that really should increase in value over time.

And, it’s not a ‘real’ business, in that it won’t need a lot of ‘hands on’ management … of course, it’s not a real passive investment either. Other candidates could be automated / no staff car-washes; ‘coin’ laundries (the new kind that use cards instead of cash); and, some of the absentee-owner franchises.

[AJC: Just be warned, you probably can’t tax-deduct much – if any – of the vehicle payments. Contrary to what the financial spruikers and shysters will tell you, the IRS is not stupid: why do you need a Ferrari to help the self-storage business / car-wash / coin-laundry produce an income?!]

But, now that Scott mentions it, I do have a hankering for an island ;)

Fitting another square peg into a round hole …

Posted on by
17

I need your help on a small project that I am working on! I have a new FaceBook Page for Top Secret Startup Project # 4 and need 25 people to “like” the page in order to get a proper URL. Would you PLEASE take exactly 10 seconds to visit that page by CLICKING HERE and click the “like” button.

I might even send one of you (by random selection) a surprise gift (HINT: think ‘apple’ and think ‘card’) AND you will be amongst the first to know what I’m up to over the next few weeks! Now, back to today’s post …
________________________
Philip Brewer is the first to break ranks … that makes him a pioneer!

He’s the first personal finance writer to question the validity of the 4% Rule; I’ll let him do what he does best … explain:

There’s a rule of thumb that’s pretty well known to retirement planners: the 4% rule. It states that if you spend 4% of your capital in your first year of retirement, you can go on spending that much — and even adjust it for inflation — and you won’t run out of money before you die. That rule is starting to look kind of iffy.

The rule is just an observation: Over the past hundred years you could have followed the 4% rule starting in any year and you wouldn’t have run out of money. That’s been true because the return to capital has been pretty high, and because downturns have been pretty short.

So, that’s the genesis of the 4% Rule … basically an assumption that if inflation runs at 3%, you can get at least 7% return on your investment (the difference being the amount you can spend: 4%). But, most investments haven’t ‘returned’ 7% – or anywhere near that – for quite some time, as Philip explains:

Stock investors saw some price appreciation in the 1990s, but there’s been no appreciation since then. In fact, your stock portfolio is probably down over the past decade, even with reinvested dividends.

… and bonds and cash haven’t fared much better, certainly not enough to keep up with inflation and provide spending money for a retiree!

The problem is we’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole:

Square Peg

Bonds, cash, and stocks are all capital investments (my term); they are designed to hold (preferably, appreciate) the capital that you put in.

You create ‘income’ from these investments: (a) from their (relatively speaking) meager dividends, and/or (b) by selling down your portfolio as needed. The 4% Rule says that the amount that you need to selll down SHOULD be offset by the increase in value of what you have left even after accounting for inflation.

The problem is in the ‘SHOULD’ word: this should all work, but as Philip points out, there are times when it doesn’t …

Round Hole

When you are retired you shouldn’t spend capital unless you print the stuff … or, at least, have an unlimited supply.

You don’t want capital, when you are retired, you really want income.

Specifically, you want a certain amount of income – and, you want regular pay increases (at least enough to keep up with inflation) – just like when you were working.

But, you want it:

a. without needing to work, and

b. without running the risk of being ‘fired’ (i.e. having your retirement income run out).

Other than some nebulous (perhaps, for you, well-defined) need to leave some of your hard-earned, precious, irreplaceable, capital behind for charity, your cat, and/or the next generation, you really don’t – shouldn’t – care very much about it, except for its ability to provide that much needed income.

So, why try and cajole capital-appreciating assets to do the work of your former employer, when there are perfectly good investments out there specifically manufactured for the sole purpose of:

1. At least maintaining their own value (ideally, after inflation), and

2. Providing you with an income, indexed for inflation, for your life or the life of the asset (whichever comes first).

A few such assets immediately spring to mind … each with their own pros/cons (which we can explore in the comments and/or future posts):

1. Real-estate: it tends to increase in value according to inflation; it tends to provide semi-reliable income that increases (again) with inflation,

2. Inflation-indexed annuities: you give up claim on the capital in return for a guaranteed (well, as long as AIG or its like stays in business) income that increases with inflation,

3. Treasury Inflation-Protected Bonds (some Municipal MUNI’s also do much the same): These guarantee that your capital will increase with inflation, and you can ladder them cleverly to provide some semblance of a (albeit low) income stream that increases with inflation.

Of all of these – and, in retirement – I like 100%-owned (i.e. paid for by cash) real-estate the best; what do you recommend?

There’s something about Todd …

Posted on by
9

Poor Todd, where I don’t fear to tread, Todd (now) refuses to go:

Everybody hates Todd Henderson.

In case you haven’t heard, he’s the University of Chicago law professor who unwisely blogged about his financial woes in a post headlined “We Are the Super Rich.”

Mr. Henderson and his wife, an oncologist, make more than $250,000 a year, and apparently they’re struggling to get by. If President Barack Obama gets his wicked way, and tax rates rise for those earning more than $250,000 a year, Mr. Henderson says it will mean real sacrifice in his family.

It’s too easy to pelt Mr. Henderson with rotten eggs, as so many have now done. (He yanked the post, but way too late–and on the Internet, one’s blunders never die.)

Never, ever, ever again blog about how hard it is to live on $300,000 or $350,000 a year at a time when one middle-aged man in four can’t find a full-time job, and one in five can’t find any job at all.

Yeah, I understand that Mr Todd was whinging to people much worse off than him.

But, I’m not afraid to speak my mind – when it comes to money – after all, ever heard of “teach a man to fish …”?

Early retirement in the extreme …

Posted on by
11

Jacob and I are really the bookends for early retirement: he says that he has retired on $6k per year (a budget of $500 p.m.), and I am retired on $250k per year (around $20k p.m.).

I know I’m happy, and I’m pretty sure that Jacob is happy, too.

Now, there are some non apples-for-apples comparisons, here:

– Jacob has a spouse who works; my spouse does not work but has thought about working

[AJC: one of the problems with being ‘rich’ is that it’s embarrassing to take a part-time admin. job that pays $13k per year, driving there in 10 years salary worth of car and driving home to 461 years worth of house! I told her that it might be better if she just donated her time to the charity that wanted to hire her]

– Jacob has no children; I have two

– Jacob’s net worth is higher than the typical American’s … so is mine!

Wealth is defined as being able to live comfortably on the passive proceeds of your investments; clearly, both Jacob and I can do that according to our individual assessments of ‘comfort’, so we are both wealthy.

Moreover, our wealth and retirement strategies are not for the masses … but, the lessons learned can be!

However – and, this is a big ‘however’ – I simply don’t believe that ‘extreme’ early retirement strategies really work for any, but a small minority of families. There will simply be too much financial pressure – some generated directly, and some indirectly (yes, peer pressure is real) from the children:

– Food: you may be happy eating home-cooked meals. Your kids will want sushi and sodas with their friends.

– Clothing: you may be happy with last-season Gap and TJ Maxx. Your kids will want this season Abercrombie and Ed Hardy.

– Education: you may be happy on $500 p.m., but how much college will that buy? Your kids will resent having to buy their own, so that you can do nothing.

– Health: your kids will be at the doctor every day … for everything from a runny nose to broken bones to removal of superfluous bits (foreskins, adenoids, tonsils, and appendix … and, that’s just in healthy children!). They won’t ask to go … every time they so much as sneeze, you’ll be dragging them there in a panic!

– Cars/phones/bling/going out/travel: see ‘college’, above!

Of course, you could bring your children up like BF:

He too, is a minimalist, but his parents (well, his father) trained him to be like that from young.

When they were kids, they weren’t poor in the sense that they were living paycheque to paycheque. They had money, they had savings, but they never spent it.

BF joked that to his parents, Money = No Object(s)!

No Television: “It’s all crap on there. Sorry kids. No TV. It’s not reality, and if you want to watch TV, you go over to your cousin’s place. But it’s crap. The radio is better. And free.”

Then from not having a TV they avoided buying:

  • TV accessories
  • A couch to sit in to watch TV
  • A VCR or DVR to record things on TV or to watch videos on the TV
  • …anything the commercials were selling

No Telephone: “Why do we need a telephone for? If you want to talk to somebody, just go over and see them.”

Then from not having a telephone:

  • No phone bills
  • No actual phone to purchase
  • No long distance calls

So what did they spend their money on? Food. And utilities to cook food. That’s it.

No extra clothes, toys, or anything I ever took for granted as a kid. Not even soccer club fees or lessons, because that would mean that you’d have to buy a soccer ball and a uniform.

… you could – and, it might even be character building for both you and your children – but, I wouldn’t count on your future familial happiness 😉

Happiness = $75,000 a year!

Posted on by
5

It’s not too late to enter my free contest: in just 3 more days, I am giving away $700 cash to one lucky reader (drawn at random) as part of my $700 in 7 Days No Strings Attached promotion. It’s free to enter simply by clicking here.

Remember, the more entries you earn the more chance you have to win! You can check out the current leaders here!

________________
Finally, there is a study that equates money to happiness!

The Wall Street Journal reports a study by “the Princeton economist Angus Deaton and famed psychologist Daniel Kahneman”, which states:

As people earn more money, their day-to-day happiness rises. Until you hit $75,000. After that, it is just more stuff, with no gain in happiness.

Let’s assume you want to retire in 20 years on the equivalent of $75k p.a. – after adjusting for inflation (roughly double your required income every 20 years) and applying the Rule of 20 (equates to a 5% p.a. drawdown on your money), this means:

Your Optimal Happiness Number = $3,000,000

None of my readers are chasing less – otherwise, why would you be reading a blog called How To Make $7 Million In 7 Years (?) – but, the point of the study has been taken by the press and the pf blogging community to mean that it’s pointless to chase more than $3 million … seemingly making my uniquely positioned blog redundant by half 🙁

Well, it’s quite interesting because there’s a second part to the study that the media and most other bloggers are conveniently ignoring:

That doesn’t mean wealthy and ultrawealthy are equally happy. More money does boost people’s life assessment, all the way up the income ladder. People who earned $160,000 a year, for instance, reported more overall satisfaction than people earning $120,000, and so on.

“Giving people more income beyond 75K is not going to do much for their daily mood … but it is going to make them feel they have a better life,” Mr. Deaton told the Associated Press.

I don’t know about you, but I like to be happy ($75k p.a. happy) and have a better life ($250k p.a. better life)!

How about you?

The difference between a business and a job …

Posted on by
9

In just 6 more days, I am giving away $700 cash to one lucky reader (drawn at random) as part of my $700 in 7 Days No Strings Attached promotion. It’s free to enter simply by clicking here.

Optional: Once you enter, you will be shown fun ways to spread the word and win more free entries. Remember, the more entries you earn the more chance you have to win!

________________

You already know that I won the business lottery!

[Let’s face it, some guys have all the luck: It took me just 7 years to build a $7 million real-estate, business, and investment portfolio from worse than scratch (I was $30k in debt when I started). Then, I managed to sell my businesses (in the USA, Australia and New Zealand) just before the market crashed. On the other hand, I’m only 5 ft 4 inches tall and balding … so, things have a way of balancing themselves out.]

So, now I get lots of people who are clearly excited when they tell me that they are “also in business” … except that they aren’t!

Mostly, they’re just working 60 to 80 hours a week – on little to no pay – for the toughest boss of all: themselves.

Worse … their spouses!

Let me give you a couple of real-life examples that should help to explain:

Peter Hastings, who already owns the antiques store right next door, opens a sandwich shop at 2264 North Lincoln Avenue. A quaint sandwich shop that he decorates with many of the items from his antique store. The shop thrives and provides Peter with a nice income for the next 20 years, when he sells it. Peter, with his two little businesses, has carved out a nice niche for himself. He was careful with his money, both before and after ‘retirement’, so – after 20+ years of hard but fulfilling work – he can finally afford to take it a little easier.

Bryant Keil buys a sandwich shop; it’s uniquely (and, quaintly) decorated, it’s in a nice location, had one owner who is selling in order to wind down a little after ‘working’ the business for 20 years. Bryant buys the little shop and develops a franchise model around it. Within 10 years, Bryant has “over 200 stores, in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., Kentucky, and Wisconsin.” Bryant is now a billionaire.

So, if you own a little sandwich shop – or, the online equivalent (here’s how you spell it: B-L-O-G) – don’t bother me with the details … it’s nice that you’re keeping yourself busy, but I’ll get bored listening to your story.

But, if you’re working on the next Potbelly Sandwich Works – or, the online equivalent (F-A-C-E-B-O-O-K) – drop me a line and don’t spare the gory details … I’m listening to every single word you say!

A fund manager’s view …

Posted on by
9

This is a little different to all of those “this is what a millionaire thinks” posts, because Evan is in a support role (“my role is more brain storming and putting together documents and calculations….then I prepare materials for the planners’ second meeting and beyond”) at a financial planning office that specializes in sucking the blood out of – I mean assisting – high net-worth clients:

My role is more brain storming and putting together documents and calculations. So basically I see almost every balance sheet that may have significant net worth which goes through my office

Since I’m a sample of one, when it comes to high net-worth clients, it might be interesting to see what Evan sees:

The House is almost always Paid off

Prepaying your mortgage is always a hot topic on Personal Finance Blogs.  Everyone once in a while one of the big players in the field will put a post and it will garner tons of comments.  The comments are usually heated and go both ways about how the move is stupid and then invariably someone will say, its a great move.  Regardless of how you feel, most of the high net worth clients’ balance sheet that I see will have either a paid off house, or one with a very low debt to equity ratio.

They Almost Always Own a Business

Almost every high net worth client’s balance sheet has a business on it.  The types of businesses range from the mundane, lawyer who owns their practice, to beyond what I could have imagined as a viable business.

They Almost Always have Investment/Financial Advisors

Almost every single high net worth client/prospect is not hands on when it comes to their own investments.  Some are more active than others when it comes to asset allocation, but for the most part unless they are in the money business (fund managers, hedge fund execs, etc.) they just don’t deal with it.

Since Evan is coming from a position of observation of his sample size of many, I will observe from my position of a sample size of one:

– I found it valuable to have a business; indeed, it’s the ultimate driver of my financial success; even before selling the business I could use the spare cashflows (after attending to the business’ own growth needs) to fund a substantial real-estate and investment portfolio.

– I own a house, and almost always have … now that I am wealthy, I carry no debt on these houses, but started reducing my debt almost in proportion to the increase in my wealth. It’s not a strategy, just a happenstance. But, I will not hesitate to use some (perhaps, up to 50%) of that equity, if required to fund an investment.

– I certainly use an investment advisor – in fact, multiple; but (here is where my experience diverges from Evan’s observations) Evan says: “Almost every single high net worth client/prospect is not hands on when it comes to their own investments.”, yet the opposite is true for me. Could this be observation bias for either Evan (he does work for a financial planning/advisory firm, right?) and/or for me?

I would never hand the keys over to my Future Fortune [AJC: How do you make $1,000,000? Give an ‘investment advisor’ $10 million … and, wait!] to somebody who has not already made their’s … if so, why do they need me?

Thanks for sharing, Evan!

The key to untold wealth!

Posted on by
2

If you’ve been following this blog for a while, you may have the sneaking suspicion that I’m also a bit of a ‘mad scientist’.

For example, I told you that, like Albert Einstein, I’ve been working on a ‘unified theory’ [AJC: I’m rather proud of this post, so go ahead and pull it out of the 7m7y archives by clicking on this link: The Big Papa lives in the 11th Dimension!].

Unlike Albert Einstein, though, I am (a little more) kempt; (very slightly) less absent-minded;  (a lot) less than genius (even a little more ‘less’ each year); and, have no Germanic accent, although my parents spoke the language fluently (but, never allowed me to learn it … it was their ‘secret language’).

On the positive side, unlike Albert Einstein who reportedly went to his grave with his secret, I have found the Unified Theory of Finance!

After literally years of searching – and, this blog has been a way for me to publicly articulate my thoughts, and get the feedback that I needed along the way [AJC: so, I will need to remember to thank all of my readers – that’s you! – at my Nobel Prize for Finance acceptance speech] – I finally made this Great Discovery (?!) on the weekend.

In fact, the breakthrough came in two parts:

The Search

Because I am (still) enamored with Sponge Bob, I was attracted to “Eugene Krabs“, who left his version of the secret formula for wealth in a seemingly innocuous comment on Free Money Finance’s blog:

I’ve boiled what I’ve read myself down to the following equation:

Wealth = Capital + Risk + Time

(To be clear, capital is the money you have right now to make more money with.)

Technically, any one of those factors can do it for you. For example, if you have a massive amount of capital, or if you take massive amounts of risk and beat the odds, or if you have a lot of time to build your wealth, then you can still become wealthy at the expense of the other two factors.

However, there are downsides to all of these individual factors.

Sensational stuff!

Unfortunately, I can’t thank “Mr Krabs” because he didn’t include any links with his moniker. On the other hand, you may quickly spot a few issues:

1. Clearly Wealth isn’t an additive of capital, risk, and time, it’s really a complex function. But, that can be solved by rewriting the equation as W = C * R * T or, even better yet, as:

W = Fn {C,R,T} i.e. Wealth is a (perhaps, complex) function of Capital, Risk, and Time.

But, understanding the math is not the point – I’m sure that Mr Krabs’ formula is meant as conceptual, not mathematically rigorous – it’s understanding that you need to balance Capital, Risk, and Time, if you want to become wealthy, that’s important … at least, according to a fictional cartoon character who saves every penny that he can get his claws on 😉

2. The more important point is that this version of the formula forgets Return; and, if we substitute Return (e.g. the 9% or 0.09 return that you supposedly get if you stick your money in the stock market for long enough), you actually have something very similar to the basic formula for compounding (which, at least according to Einstein, is the ‘most powerful force in the universe’:

3. Even if I somehow modified Mr Krabs’ simple version (and/or the more complex – but, correct – mathematical representation of compounding) to include both Risk and Return (a.k.a. Reward), the formula IMHO still wouldn’t explain why Warren Buffett is sensationally rich investing in exactly the same stocks that we invest in, yet we manage to lose money (in the short term, in absolute value, and even in the long term, certainly after inflation is taken into account)!?!

Until I can explain that, there is no formula 🙁

The Breakthrough

Still my gut told me that Mr Krabs [AJC: I love using his pen name … I’ll see how many more times I can fit it into this really very serious post!] was on the right track, because his representation did provide the missing simplification that I needed.

But, I kept hitting brick wall after brick wall …

… until last Sunday.

Last Sunday, I took my son and a few friends to play in their weekly teenage tennis competition [AJC: we all got free ‘slurpies’ from a 7-11 Convenience store on the way back home from tennis because it was 7-11 Day: November 7, 2010. Go figure!].

Instead of watching the game, I sat in the car with all my notes – pages and pages of complex math, simple math, all trying to fit Risk, Return, Capital, Time, and so on into a simple, conceptual ‘formula’ … all the while, trying to use it to explain the difference between you, me, and Warren Buffett.

As I said, until I could do that, I had nothing!

It was driving me crazy! So, I did the only sensible thing: I laid back the car seat and dozed off … but, when I woke up half an hour later, I had it:


“Is that all?”, you say [yawn]

Hell, yes!

Really understand this, and you have the key to untold wealth … in any field of endeavor.

I’ll explain the X-Factor (it can be explained!) in an upcoming post …

AJC.

PS Remember: this ‘formula’ is conceptual and is more correctly (but, still grossly) simplified as:

W = Fn {C,X,T} i.e. Wealth is a (definitely, very) complex function of Capital, The ‘X-Factor’, and Time.

The False War On Debt …

Posted on by
11

There’s a war raging out there: it’s being fought by authors and bloggers everywhere.

But, is it the right war? Is it a just war? Or, are we just throwing ourselves, by the millions, into a hail of fire: exploding spending, rampant inflation, the death of social security?

Sure, as we sit in the relative safety of our trenches (at least, that’s what we tell ourselves, until a random mortar shell of job loss or unexpected expenses chooses to lob our way) this is not OUR future … it’s somebody else’s, or it’s too far away, or it just can’t happen …

The sad truth is that legions have jumped the wall before us and have been brutally cut down for lack of an adequate nest-egg; it’s sad to see them go over the dreaded wall of retirement (be it their time, or forced on them early) without an adequate safety net … when they do, it’s as though their grim fate had already been sealed.

Broke – or ‘just’ financially crippled – and unable (for financial reasons) to live life as they had hoped, they are a sad, sad lot.

You see, the war that they fought wasn’t – isn’t – a just war. It’s not even a war … well, it shouldn’t even be more than a skirmish.

It’s the War Against Debt!

When it comes to that war, I’m strictly a pacifist; isn’t it better to simply avoid BAD debt?

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we can’t … shouldn’t … defend ourselves.

Far from it: if we find that BAD debt has snuck through our defences, let’s keep an eye on it. And, if we find that it’s also EXPENSIVE debt, then let’s whip out the Big Guns and wipe it out. Quickly, surgically …

… but, let’s not commit Debt Genocide.

You see, unlike the well-intentioned, but largely Debt-McArthyist “ALL Debt Is Bad, So Let’s Wipe It Out” rabble out there, let’s first ask The Missing Question:

What will you do after your debt is paid off?

“Well, start investing of course!”

But, does that REALLY happen? Who better to ask than Money Reasons:

This past February 2010, I became totally debt free, but now what!

I thought that there would be a period where I would break even for a while, and then start to plow about $1,000 extra each month into investments!  So now that it’s seven months later and how much extra did I save or invest?  Not a single cent!

Hang on, the whole purpose of suiting up for battle – for going to war against debt – was so that you could start investing, right? What’s up with that, Money Reasons:

Well it’s been a matter of bad luck with equipment breaking down and needing replaced and spending too much for our past vacation to Hilton Head Island!

But it’s also been a subtle form of LifeStyle Inflation!  Thinking back now, I realize that when wants would arise, I would just go ahead and buy it.  Yeah, I thought about it a bit, but I knew that I had the cash.  Then when your car and lawn mower broke down, I had the cash too…

Money Reasons should have started investing well before all of his debt was paid off … he should have started investing as soon as his expensive debt was paid off and left his cheap debt on a regimen of minimum payments.

The problem with this war is that it’s an unjust war; as TraineeInvestor said: “Debt is a tool. Paying it off is simply choosing not to use the tool.”

Yes, becoming debt free is simply a tactic …

If you have to go and fight a war, don’t fight a war against debt …

… go and fight a war for investment 😉