Tag Archives: 7million

Good deal or bad deal?

Posted on by
Reply

No, this is NOT another ‘Howie Mandel-style’ game show … I’m done with that series (aside from a couple of wrap-up posts, still to come)!

But, this will be my last reader Poll for a while, so I want you to sit down for 3 minutes and make a commercial decision with imperfect information:

Time for a fun ‘hypothetical’ … I’m not really asking you to invest with me [AJC: I want you to learn to invest with somebody far more capable: yourself!] …

I would like you, and a number of other people, to join me in a real estate project [remember: this is hypothetical].

It will be very low risk, because it’s a very well-established commercial strip-mall in a great area, pretty much fully rented with lots of good tenants with long leases left to run and for the last 10 years has produced a reasonable – perhaps not stellar, but certainly highly respectable – profit with very low maintenance costs, tenant turnover, etc., etc.

No catches, here, really … it will be a general partnership, I will be the managing partner and you can join the group of passive investors already committed.

So, let’s look at the deal a little:

Your share of the investment will cost $100,000 and for that you get 10% of the $1,000,000 project (incl. financing/closing costs) … it’s a very inexpensive strip mall 😉

We expect reasonable capital appreciation over the life of the project (up to 10 years, although you can sell out anytime before then, and we will guarantee both a buyer and then-current market price for your share).

The property will return about $9,000 a year (net operating income per 10% share), but we think it’s best to keep aside some as a contingency against vacancies, maintenance, etc., etc.)

So, we will guarantee you (secured by the project itself) $7,500 income each year for at least the next 10 years indexed to 7.5% of the current value of the building (but, NO LESS than the $7,500 p.a. guarantee) v the $3,000 or 3% that a bank will currently give you, and which does not grow. Of course, you may have others ideas in mind for the money, but I hope you will invest with us … after all, here, your income is guaranteed!

In summary: an ultra-low-risk ‘bricks and mortar’ investment returning a MINIMUM 7.5% p.a. on your original investment (increasing in line with property value increase) … you will get your money back, just from the guaranteed distributions that the project will pay you, over 13 years and you STILL get 10% of any appreciation in the building!

Deal or no deal?

A little perspective …

Posted on by
Reply

picture-1

For a bit of fun, I typed in an annual income of $220,000 into this handy little online calculator, and it shows that I’m the 107,565th richest person in the world … whoohoo!

Now, if I typed in my real annual income, I think that I could jump myself higher up that list … and, if I factored in that I get that money mainly passively, well ….

Reminds me of an interview that I saw with Guy Laliberté, founder of Cirque Du Soleil, who went from street performer (read homeless hustler) to sharing the same level of wealth as Oprah.

Now, that’s not the bit that blew me away; what did was that they were sharing something like 160th place on Forbes’ list of the richest people in the world: Oprah … Cirque Du Soleil Man … and, they ONLY get to be joint 160th (approx.) on the list??!!

Who are these other dudes between them and Bill Gates?!

So, it’s really good to be able to put things in perspective and realize that if you are earning almost ANY regular salary, you are in the Top 10% of the richest people on the planet:

The Global Rich List calculations are based on figures from the World Bank Development Research Group. To calculate the most accurate position for each individual we assume that the world’s total population is 6 billion¹ and the average worldwide annual income is $5,000².

Below is the yearly income in percentage for different income groups according to the World Bank’s figures³.

Percentage of world population Percentage of world income Yearly individual income Daily individual income
Bottom 10 percent 0.8 $400 $1,10
Bottom 20 percent 2.0 $500 $1,37
Bottom 50 percent 8.5 $850 $2,33
Bottom 75 percent 22.3 $1,487 $4,07
Bottom 85 percent 37.1 $2,182 $5,98
Top 10 percent 50.8 $25,400 $69,59
Top 5 percent 33.7 $33,700 $92,33
Top 1 percent 9.5 $47,500 $130,14


The world’s distribution of money can also be displayed as the chart below.

¹ 2003 world population Data Sheet of the Population Reference Bureau.
² Steven Mosher, president of the population research institute, CNN, October 13, 1999.
³ Milanovic, Branco. “True World Income Distribution, 1988 and 1993: First calculations based on household surveys alone”, World Bank Development Research Group, November 2000, page 30.

So, realize that UNLESS YOU ARE PLANNING TO DEVOTE SERIOUS SLABS OF YOUR TIME AND MONEY TO WORTHY CAUSES this blog and everything we are doing here is about as useful as a blog on whittling … and, probably a darn site less so, because there’s nothing inherently of artistic merit in even the best-crafted bank account.

How much does it take to feel wealthy?

Posted on by
10

The answer is “about double” 🙂

But, that’s not really a tongue in cheek question / answer, it’s actually scientifically researched and verified fact …

… let me explain.

Most people want to become rich (when we strip away the houses, cars, vacations, sex, drugs, rock and roll [AJC: Boy, I must lead a great life!]) simply to feel secure … to stop having to worry about money.

So, the definition of ‘rich’ for most people is related to how much more money that they feel that they would need in order to stop feeling financially insecure. And, that always seems to be about twice what you currently have; take a look at this report by MSN Money (if anybody can find the base source, please send me the link … I hate to quote quotes).

  • Those who earned less than $30,000 thought that a household income of $74,000 would qualify as rich.
  • Those who made $30,000 to $50,000 said an income of $100,000 would be rich.
  • And people in the top half [$50k – $100k+] of earners were more likely to say that an income of $200,000 earns you the right to the R[ich] word.

So, it seems that no matter what income level you are on, you need two (to perhaps three) times that in order to feel ‘rich’.

Perhaps, you feel that it would be different if we weren’t talking penny-ante incomes here, and jumped straight to millionaires and multi-millionaires? Surely, things would be different for them?

Well, not so … according to Robert frank, Author of Richistan, most of America’s Ultra-Wealthy still consider themselves as ‘middle class’ and would need “about twice what they already have in order to feel wealthy”.

So, this is just another reason why picking a random income or net worth $$$$ target and calling that ‘rich’ doesn’t cut the mustard … you’ll never be relaxed with your level of wealth, no matter how much you have.

No, what you need to do is:

1. Understand WHY you need the money: we call this Understanding Your Life’s Purpose

2. Understand HOW MUCH you would need so that you would be free to LIVE your Life’s Purpose: we call this Calculating Your Number

… and, when you finally reach your Number, not worrying about chasing more, because that’s about as sensible as a dog chasing it’s tail!

The definition of insanity …

Posted on by
8

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein

Thankfully, this blog isn’t for everybody … only those who want to get rich(er) quick(er) … I’ve proved that it can be done successfully, and I am conducting a ‘grand experiment’ at one of my other sites to prove that it’s not just luck and that others can do it, too.

But, the vast majority are still in the ‘work for 40 years and hope to have saved enough’ mindset … and they have worries of their own, as this recent Gallup Poll showed:

Of course, recent economic woes are probably ‘skewing’ this a little … but, think about it – most aren’t retiring tomorrow, or even in the next 10 years, so markets will have plenty of time to boom and bust again for them.

No, the problem is more endemic: most people simply don’t think that they will be able to retire happy or comfortably – and certainly not wealthy – despite the ‘formidable’ array of ‘retirement weapons’ at their disposal:

So, if the majority of people are using these tools and the majority of people believe that they won’t work for them …

Whatup?!

Surely, at some level, these people know that these tools – as I have been hammering home in this blog for some months now – simply won’t do the job?!

Let’s take a look:

1. 401k’s – High fees; low returns; lousy investment products on offer:

STRIKE 1 – I have never had a 401k and I have no idea what is even in any of my tax-advantaged / retirement accounts.

2. Social Security – An unfunded program; USA in the highest level of debt in history’ what’s the chances of Social Security being around in the same form when YOU retire?:

STRIKE 2 – When my social security statement arrives I chuck it in the trash without reading it, it’s irrelevant, it won’t be around when I retire, and I had this same line of thinking BEFORE I became rich.

3. Home Equity – Please! Where do you intend to live when you retire? By the time you buy and pay changeover costs etc. if you see any spare cash, it may be just about enough to pay off your remaining credit card debt:

STRIKE 3 – I live in my home equity, don’t you?

4. Pension Plan – Do you work for Ford/GM/Chrylser? Any airline? Just about any bank?:

STRIKE 4 [AJC: 4 strikes???!!! I’m an Aussie, what do I know from baseball?] Ditto to the above, in fact, I have never subscribed to an employer-sponsored pension plan, even where I have had the choice.

… need I go on?

The point is, if you know these tools aren’t going to work for you – as the majority of Americans surveyed by Gallup seem to – yet you keep using them – as the majority of Americans do – isn’t that the very definition of ‘insanity’?

Now, that’s a question that I would love to see the Gallup Survey for!?

Money Makes the World Go Around …

Posted on by
3

It’s sad, but true … it seems that money does make the world go around.

It’s what seems to drive people to make – lose then make – lose … and, so on … their money. It becomes an end rather than merely a means.

But, I have a slightly different view:

1. FIRST decide WHY you need the money … I call this Understanding Your Life’s Purpose

2. THEN decide HOW MUCH money you need in order to do whatever it is that you need the money for (and, by WHEN) … I call this Calculating Your Number

3. FINALLY, when you DO get to your Number, STOP and LIVE YOUR LIFE.

… the fallacy of dividend paying stocks!

Posted on by
19

billboard2

When I’m not writing posts here, I’m hanging around the Share Your Number Community Site, talking to the other members.We launched this site in 2008, and in 2009 we are planning a major expansion so please join now … it’s FREE and easy!

Remember, helping others get to their Number is the best way to get to yours …

________________________

I have been itching to write this post for some time now, and yesterday’s post about investing in income-producing real-estate v speculating in (hopefully) appreciating RE should have provided the necessary comments/questions …

… but, it didn’t 🙁

However, Steve chose this particular day to finally complete his comment on a post that goes back 6 months … a comment that is right ‘on topic’ for me … and, is a question that all of us should be asking … so, thanks Steve!

Here’s what Steve had to say:

I don’t purport that he is write [sic] in his article but would really love to hear your views on [this] story…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/84850-investing-in-dividend-paying-companies?source=d_email

what i liked about it is the dividend paying stock situation. certainly i wouldn’t consider as an only avenue to wealth, but do you feel dividend paying stocks are a better choice than non dividend paying stocks?

The article promotes a method of investing that the author claims returns “a little over 8.68% annually … while not earth shattering by any means, compare[s] very favorably with the market’s performance over the same period. From July 1988 to now, the S&P 500 has advanced … around 7.86% annually.”

The ‘now’ is actually July 2008, so only reflects some of the recent stock market losses, but the principle is clear, at least according to the author: invest in dividend-paying stocks …

… and, this is certainly ONE (of many) Making Money 301 tactics that I recommend when you have made your Number and are trying to preserve your wealth. However, it is just that – a tactic – and, certainly not the best one there is.

Given this, and my strong recommendation that you invest in RE for income, you might be a little surprised to hear me say:

As a Making Money 101 or 201 strategy, seeking out dividend-paying stocks is almost irrelevent!

Why?

Well, let’s take a look:

Stocks return in TWO main ways, just like real-estate:

1. Capital Appreciation

2. Dividends

Capital Appreciation

Just like real-estate, the price of a stock tends to go up according to the profits of the company. When I say “just like real-estate”, I mean just like commercial real-estate … residential real-estate has other, less tangible drivers of future value. So commercial real-estate tends to rise in value as rents rise, and stocks tend to rise in value as the company’s profits rise.

Naturally, inflation is a key driver (forcing rents/profits up, hence the price of the real-estate/stock) but there are plenty of other ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ factors as well e.g. for real-estate it could be job growth, for companies it could be competitive pressures, etc.

This is what I would call the Investment Factor that tends to drive up the value of such investments, and you can generally be confident that prices will increase according to this factor – over the long-haul.

An equally important factor is ‘market demand’ for that type of investment, which is reflected in ‘capitalization rates’ for real-estate and ‘Price-Earning (PE) Ratios’ for stocks … this is essentially a measure of how long somebody who buys that investment is willing to wait to get their money back via future rents/profits.

This is what I would call the Speculation Factor that tends to drive up or down the value of such investments, and you can never be sure which way this will drive prices – over the short-haul.

Unfortunately, as recent market events in both real-estate and then stocks have very clearly shown – the Speculation Factor has a much greater effect on pricing than the Investment Factor … unless your time horizon is very long, indeed.

This is why it is much better to look for the underlying investment returns, unfortunately often mistakenly confused with …

Dividends

Because Real-estate produces rents – and, hopefully positive cashflow after mortgage and holding costs are taken into account (which, should be your main criteria for investing ), people often confuse dividends paid on stocks with returns on real-estate investments.

This is not the case:

Whereas real-estate returns are simply the rents that you receive less the costs (e.g. mortgage, repairs and maintenance, etc.), stock dividends do NOT directly reflect the profits of the underlying business.

Commercial real-estate usually provides an investment return set by a ‘free market’ (for things like competitive rents, competitive interest rates, etc.) …

… but, the dividends on most stocks are simply set by a board of directors according to whatever criteria makes sense to them at the time.

People who invest in dividend-paying stocks are confusing dividends with company profits … but they are NOT directly aligned: a company may make super profits and not pay a dividend at all (for example, Warren Buffett’s own Berkshire Hathaway has NEVER paid a dividend).

A company that makes NO profit may still choose to pay a dividend (perhaps from cash or even borrowings) … just to keep their shareholders happy (for example, in 2004 Regal Cinemas paid a $5 per share dividend; “to make the $718 million payout, Regal first had to borrow from its banks”).

Is it a sound financial strategy TO invest in Regal Cinemas because they DO pay a dividend, or NOT TO invest in Berkshire Hathaway because they DON’T?

I’d love to hear your views …

___________________

You can also find us at the latest Money Hacks Carnival, hosted this week by Money Beagle …

Investing is a business …

Posted on by
Reply

There was a craze that hit Australia in the 90’s and America in the 2000’s … we know the result, but what was the cause?

It was the ‘negative gearing’ craze …

… people were promoting real-estate purchases on the basis that you take a loss now and make a (hopefully, huge) capital gain in the future.

The benefits that used to be promoted by the real-estate gurus are stated very nicely in this comment on Andee Sellman’s blog:

You have forgotten tax benefits which can be substantial. Also, the actual equity needed to purchase his investment could have been minimal compared to the purchase price. Most importantly, over time the tenant and the tax man pay for the majority of his investment.

Now, I would understand this comment if it were from 2005 or even 2006, but it is from only a couple of months ago …

… if we don’t learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them!

When real-estate is going up in price, it is easy to get caught in the trap of buying on the basis of future capital appreciation, and use tax deductions on the mortgage and depreciation benefits on the building and improvements to help ‘soften the blow’ as running costs were typically higher than the income (in some places, severely so … yet we still bought!).

Given the current market we all KNOW the problems this causes, but real-estate – and sentiments – cycle every 7 to 10 years, so WHEN you forget what happened in 2007 and 2008 during the next boom, pull up this blog and remember:

Treat your real-estate investment as a BUSINESS.

A real business is bought (or started) because it does (or soon will) produce profits and free cash-flow year in and year out, and then MAY be sold at a future date for a speculative gain. At least, that’s what happened to me …

… I can’t understand why we shouldn’t look at any other investment, including property, exactly the same way?

Can you?!

The perfect way to allocate your spending?

Posted on by
7

I saw this on Get Rich Slowly and wonder what you think of it?

Since I didn’t allocate my own spending this way ‘on the way up’, I can’t comment either way … but, maybe some of you can?

Here’s how it works:

You take your After Tax income and divide it into three categories:

1. Needs – These are you ‘must haves’ i.e. things that you can’t go without: rent/mortgage; car; electricity; basic food (the book provides a ‘rule of thumb’ for this); and, so on.

You allocate 50% of your after tax income to these needs; given that we already have the 25% Income Rule (spend no more than 25% of your after tax income on rent/mortgage) that leaves 25% on all the other ‘needs’.

2. Wants – According to the book, you should have fun – and, budget 30% of your after-tax income for it. I happen to be of the same mindset … what is money, if not for spending (except that you must do it in a way that allows you to live your Life’s Purpose by your desired Date). 

According to the book, ‘wants’ include additional food (i.e. lamb chops instead of dog food?), your cable TV and internet (these are definite needs for me, especially on my 100″ home theater screen … but, I can afford it!); trips and vacations; and, so on.

3. Savings – that leaves (or should leave) 20% of your after-tax income for your 401k investments and other savings/investment … since this is 5% to 10% more than most authors suggest, I commend it. Just remember, that even with 20% you’re not going to be able to save your way to wealth.

All in all, it seems like a pretty good savings plan to me … what improvements would you make?

Rich Rat, Poor Rat

Posted on by
2

This video is essentially an ad for Robert Kiyosaki’s (Rich Dad, Poor Dad author) board game … a game that I own but have NEVER played. But, the video is also a snapshot of how you can use assets to buy consumer goods. Watch the (visually OK, but aurally uninspiring) video, then read on as I have some comments …

[AJC: Finished watching? Good …. now read on ….]

1. The assumption is that you are smart enough NOT to finance a depreciating ‘asset’ (actually, liability) and save up enough money to pay CASH for your boat: GOOD

2. Can you see how Robert Kiyosaki then suggests that you buy a cashflow positive property, using the cash that you saved for the boat as a deposit on the property instead? Robert implies that the property produces enough cash to then pay for the loan repayments on the boat: BETTER

But, Robert is suggesting that we BREAK a key making Money 101 Rule: that we should borrow to by a consumer item (this is BAD debt); Robert also suggests that ‘delayed gratifiction’ is good. So, let’s make use of this to see if we can come up with a better outcome.

Using a very simple loan calculator, I find that the $16,000 boat will actually cost us $21,600 over 4 years (assuming 10.5% interest, and $343 / month payments) …

… but, if we instead SAVE the full $750 / month that the property spins off as money in our pocket (after mortgage, etc.), we will have SAVED up enough to pay CASH for the boat in just under 2 years (21 months)! What’s more, over the four years that we have NOT been paying the boat loan, our money has been earning us approx. an extra $100 – $400 in bank interest.

OK, so the $100 – $400 extra interest we earn (if the money just sits in CD’s) is not exciting, but also SAVING $5,600 … a total of nearly $6k … surely is? So waiting less than 2 years, then paying cash for the boat, thus saving ourselves nearly $6,000: BEST

There is an exception: where the expense is a business expense it may be OK to finance … Robert gives the example in one of his books about how he was going to buy a Ferrari, but his wife (who’s obviously smarter – as well as better looking – than him) told him to buy a self-storage business instead, and use that to fund the payments on the Ferrari.

Smart … but, I’m sure the IRS would have some words about the deductibility of a Ferrari as ‘company car’ for a self-storage business 😉

How to build a conglomerate …

Posted on by
1

I wrote a post a while ago, in response to a reader question, that questioned the sanity of an entrepreur following my path and owning multiple concurrent businesses.

I said: bad idea!

However, Diane points to a number of conglomerates (a collection of related or unrelated businesses under common corporate control) that make money because they diversify into multiple businesses and sectors:

Most conglomerates are good examples of diversified businesses (GE comes to mind). One could also buy complementary businesses. Your risk level is affected the same way as it would be with diversifying any investment.

Your example of multiplying the management teams (and thereby increasing risk to each business) is interesting, Adrian. This is precisely one a buyer of companies is looking for (like your friend Brad) – inefficient management with an underlying fairly decent business. You buy and consolidate, combining the common management (HR, Acctg, IT) that runs across each company, combine anything else you can “leverage” (logistic chains, purchasing power, for examples), and save money, thereby reducing costs and making it even more attractive to investors (depending on which kind you want).

And, it’s true: a conglomerate can diversify a company’s risks, just like diversifying a stock portfolio … the problem is – just like any other diversification strategy – you equally ‘wash out’ your successes with your failures.

My issue is that this may work as a ‘risk mitigation strategy for large companies, but it’s too risky for smaller (e.g. sole, or family) operators.

Large conglomerates build up over time, usually using one successful business to fund the rest. The key is having good management in each … the risk (for a small player, like you and I) is trying to BE that management.

A great example is Warren Buffett: he started Berkshire Hathaway by buying a controlling interest in a mediocre textile company and raised cash simply by stopping the dividend stream to the shareholders …

… he used that cash to buy an insurance company, and used policyholder cash from the insurance company to buy more companies.

The interesting thing is that he does NOT look for companies with poor management; rather he buys GOOD companies with GREAT management and keeps them in place, doing what they do best: creating more cash for his next company purchase … and, so on goes Warren’s $40 Billion – $60 Billion (his personal net worth in Berkshire Hathaway) ‘cash machine’ that owns more than 75 companies!

The problem is that Warren only got to this point because he couldn’t find one company that ‘did the trick’ … he would, however, put 60% to 80% of his entire net worth in just one investment/business, if he could find it!