Tag Archives: Investing

When winning the lottery ain’t enough …

Posted on by
25

trailer-trashMotley Fool tells us about Lou Eisenberg who just seems like another Global Financial Crisis statistic: broke and living in a mobile home, supported by $250 per week in Social Security and pension payments …

… except that in 1981 Lou “won what was, at the time, the largest-ever lottery payout”, valued at $5 Million.

Now, with the 25 year inflation rate averaging around 3.25% (at least, according to my calculations), I put that at something approaching $9.5 million 2009 dollars …

… a fortune in anybody’s language!

So, what went wrong?

A number of things: for a start, Lou didn’t actually get $5 million in cash, instead he received a 20 year ‘annuity’ of $130,000 a year after tax.

Even so, that’s $250,000 a year (for 20 years!) in today’s dollars – plenty for anybody to live a very nice lifestyle  … so, what went wrong?!

The article doesn’t actually say, but I’ll take a stab:

Like most lottery winners, Lou thought that he was rich and set for life, and probably started spending like it. Big mistake!

In reality, because the money is fixed and runs out after 20 years, it’s nowhere near like having $5 million in the bank: with $5 million, you would put $250k aside and pay off your debts and have a nice holiday and buy a slightly nicer car with the change.

As for the other $4.75 million, you would buy some nice income-producing real-estate for $4.5 million – keeping $250k as a buffer against ‘problems’ – and, live off whatever 75% of the rent gives you … probably something like $225k indexed for inflation for life (and, your kids and/or charities have an inflation-protected estate worth $4.5 million in 1981 and probably around $11 million today).

Now, THAT’S rich 🙂

But, Lou didn’t get $5 million … he ‘only’ got $130,000 a year for 20 years.

So, even though he didn’t know it at the time (but, he sure knows it now that it’s too late) he wasn’t even comfortable … the lottery only gave him enough – IF he planned things well enough – to stop work and live a $65k a year lifestyle!

How can that be so?

Well, for a start, the $130k a year only lasts for 20 years then stops suddenly … so, what does Lou do then?

Secondly, the $130k a year does not increase with inflation …

…. do you begin to see the problem?

You see, Lou should be looking at:

1. What is the buying power of his FUTURE $130k today?

2. And, how much of that $130k can he replace on or before the 20 years is up with passive income?

He should always aim to live off the inflation-reduced lesser of the two.

This is not terribly different from somebody who is planning to retire in 20 years, in that Lou has to use some of his current ($130k p.a.) income to produce a nest-egg large enough to support him in real-retirement (i.e. when he stops working AND the regular ‘pay checks’ stop coming in) except that Lou:

i) Does know what his final ‘salary’ will be (i.e. $130k after tax), and

ii) Doesn’t have to actually do any real ‘work’ ever again … at least, not if he had read this post in advance 🙂

So, here’s the logic that you need to apply if you win the lottery, or even if you just plan to work for the next 20 years, and haven’t actually thought about saving or investing until now:

Step 1

Estimate your final salary i.e. $130,000 (after tax) a year in 2001

Note: You should deflation-adjust that figure into ‘today’s (i.e. 1981 for Lou) dollars. At 3.25% inflation, $67,000 would have the same buying power in 1981 as $130,000 would in 2001. In other words, if Lou didn’t want to lower his standard of living over the 20 year period of his payouts, he would need to spend something less than $130k a year from 1981 onwards.

In fact, to maintain exactly the same standard of living year-upon-year (from 1981 to 2001) he should spend only $67k a year in year one and build up to $130k by year 20, giving himself a 3.25% ‘pay-rise’ each year to keep pace with inflation.

Step 2

Decide what % of your salary that you would like to spend and what % you would like to put towards your future (i.e. when the 20 years is up and your ‘salary’ abruptly stops, or when Lou’s $130k a year checks stop rolling in). Because you can’t spend all the money in the early years, anyway (see Note above), your ability to save is kind’a built in.

I suggest starting with 30% ie that means that Lou should start by spending only 30% x $130k = $39k a year of his payout checks; this is nearly half the full $67k that $130k 2009 dollars is worth in 1981, but (in Lou’s case) is necessary to make the numbers work [AJC: as will become apparent].

Before you say that $39k is paltry, remember that this is all happening in 1981, and his self-provided ‘pay-rises’ will ensure that Lou builds up to a ‘salary’ of $95k in 2009 …

… in fact, the $39k in 1981 IS $95k in 2009: not too shabby 🙂

And, Lou hasn’t lifted a finger in over 25 years!

Step 3

Start saving the balance (i.e. the other 70% in 1981) of the yearly $130k payout check; now, this is a tidy $91k in 1981 dollars (which would be like saving nearly $223k a year, in 2009 … a VERY tidy sum).

Why spend only 30% and save as much as 70% of his payouts? Because Lou has to build his own ‘retirement fund’, he has to do it all on his own, and he has only 20 years to do it in!

Let’s put him 100% into stocks and/or mutual funds [AJC: yuk] and, to be extremely conservative, I simply used the ‘guaranteed’ 20 years stock market return of 8%, to the tune of $91k invested in the first year (1981), slowly decreasing to $56k annual “top ups” by the final year (2001).

Why reducing?

Well, Lou needs those 3.25% pay increases each year to keep up with inflation, but his $130k a year total income is fixed, so something has to give … the good news is that Lou can comfortably afford to increase his spending and decrease his savings rate, IF he plans it well and does it slowly … again at that magic 3.25% annual rate. Get it?

Step 4

With all that money going into reasonably conservative investments, over the 20 years, Lou will manage to keep ‘pay-rising’ his way to a $73k annual ‘salary’ in 2001, yet still manage to build up a $4 million nest-egg!

The Rule of 20 says that even after the lottery checks stop coming, Lou should be able to comfortably live off $200k a year (indexed for inflation for life) by way of passive income generated by his investments (i.e. by a combination of dividends and/or selling a small portion of his stock holdings every year), commencing in 2001

Step 5

Instead of giving himself a sudden ‘pay-rise’ to $200k p.a. when the lottery checks stop kicking in, and the retirement nest-egg dividend checks take over, Lou can simply iterate this model by saving less than 70% of his 1981 income, until his 2001 lottery-spending closely matches his 2002-onwards Rule of 20 nest-egg payout …

… according to my figures, this actually allows him to start by saving exactly half of his first annual $130k lottery check, and spending the other half without guilt:

That’s $65k in 1981 or an annual salary of $160k (in today’s dollars) – indexed for inflation – and, for life!

So, the secret – if there is one – is to:

a) Always think in terms of paying yourself an annual ‘salary’ (whether your windfall comes in one chunk or many), and

b) Always try and live off less than you think that you can reasonably build up in passive income by the time that you need it, and

c) Apply all the other rules that I have shared on this blog, when it comes to deciding how and when (and on what) you will spend that ‘salary’.

Of course, you can always just decide to have fun, splash your money around, and retire to your trailer park, like Lou … easy come, easy go 🙂

Would you trust your money to this man?

Posted on by
13

alberto-vilar

Lots of people trusted this man with their money, but more on that later …

First, I want to tell you about The Finance Buff who wants to offer you personal finance advice … he also wants to know how much you’re prepared to pay, claiming that there’s an under-serviced market here for inexpensive, unbiased personal finance advice:

Usually an under-served market exists when there is a big gap between what customers are willing to pay and what it costs to produce what they want. I suspect that’s the case in the financial advice market.

[But,] I’m willing to help others with their personal finance questions. I don’t necessarily have to make much money from it (my full-time job covers my living expenses), but I do want to at least cover my cost of regulatory compliance and liability insurance.

With most things, you pay peanuts and you get monkeys …

… and, that may be the case here:

I am not a financial advisor. I do have personal opinions, sometimes strong, ignorant, or biased. Everything you read here on this blog is the author’s personal opinion, not financial advice. I am by no means an expert on anything. I don’t intend to mislead, but my facts, figures, and calculations can be incomplete, inaccurate or plain wrong.

Of course, that’s just his legal disclaimer … because, after reading the quality of The Finance Buff’s blog, that may not be the case at all … it could indeed be quality financial advice at a bargain price! 🙂

On the other hand, looking for a top-of-the-town advisor and paying the commensurate high price may not get you the kind of quality financial advice that you would expect, either.

Alberto Vilar [pictured above], 68, co-founder of Amerindo Investment Advisers, faces up to 20 years in jail after being found guilty on all 12 counts of fraud and money-laundering against him. Hailed as heroes by their clients, they made fortunes for themselves in management fees. [But,] their fortunes plummeted at the same time as the dot-com bubble burst. They were arrested in May 2005 after a client, heiress Lily Cates, claimed they had stolen $5 million from her.

Price [does not equal] Quality when it comes to personal financial advice.

For that reason, I don’t recommend that you put your money into the hands of any advisor; in fact, I recommend that you do not seek a personal financial advisor at all … rather, you should look for a personal financial mentor.

There is a difference:

ad⋅vis⋅er

–noun
1. one who gives advice.
2. Education. a teacher responsible for advising students on academic matters.
3. a fortuneteller.

men⋅tor

–noun
1. a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.
2. an influential senior sponsor or supporter.

Would you rather trust your financial future to the book-learned “fortuneteller” who will promise to give you a bucket-load of fish …

… or, would you rather trust it to yourself, with the support of the self-made “wise and trusted counselor” who will teach you to fish?

[ AJC: There is another difference: a true mentor won’t ask you to pay for anything more than a lunch or two 😉 ]

Whether you are looking for an advisor, or a mentor, or you don’t care which because you think the difference is moot, after satisfying yourself of their integrity and character, here is what I would look for:

1. If I know my Number and Date, then I would look for a mentor who has made 10 times as much in about half the time, and

2. Doing exactly what it is that I need to do in order to achieve my required annual compound growth rate.

Choosing an advisor and/or mentor by asking these typical ‘financial advisor double-speak’ questions can’t do you any good; you see:

They can’t be aligned with the way you think … instead, they need to be aligned with the way you want to think.

I’m having a hard time finding advisors and mentors who can move me to Making Money 301 (protecting my wealth) … now do you see why?

Is the shark’s bite worse than its bark?

Posted on by
11

Offer

I was really impressed with the quality of our readers’ analysis of last week’s video post (from ABC’s excellent show, the Shark Tank, which is about a group of entrepreneurs who listen to various pitches before deciding whether to invest their own money), so I thought that I should do this follow-up piece, while the video is still reasonably fresh in our minds.

In case you didn’t see the video, or need a refresher, here is the link: http://7million7years.com/2009/11/12/take-the-money-and-run/

The reader poll shows that people are reasonably split between not giving any equity away at all, or giving away a minority … fewer still wanted to give away a controlling interest.

So, who is right? More importantly, what did the girls decide?

I once told you that most business decisions are made emotionally and justified rationally later, and I believe that this is a classic case of that, but more on that later … for now, let’s simplify this seemingly complex decision (competing offers of $350k then $500k then back to $350k again, against equity of 40% to 65% then back to 51%) into two sets of binary decisions:

Decision Point # 1: To give away equity or not to give away equity, that is the question?!

Rick Francis makes the ‘no equity’ argument quite well:

I wouldn’t have given the equity away- it sounded as if they didn’t really NEED the 350K to keep their business going. They have some big customers and are getting repeat orders. They want the $ for marketing, $350K will NOT make them a household word, and I doubt it would dramatically increase their sales. Their product is in major hotel chains THAT can be their main marketing. They could use the internet to make very targeted ads for a small fraction of $350K which they should be able to do as an operating expense.

And, in a strange twist, Scott actually helps to illustrate the reverse argument:

I wouldn’t give an ounce of equity away on this. You could read the sharks from the first 30 seconds that they were salivating over this. Even if it took me 5-6 more years to reinvest every penny I could into marketing and if I had to do everything I could to tell the world about that idea, including trying to land a spot on Oprah

You see, I think the equity / no equity decision boils down to time … without the Sharks’ help, can you get your business to the point where it will deliver your Number by your Date? If not, then with the Sharks’ help, can you reach your Number/Date?

That extra 5 to 6 years that Scott is talking about could be a killer … not to mention, the longer you wait the more chance there is of stronger competition raining on your parade.

That would be the driving force for the equity / no equity decision for me; while I would prefer to keep 100% of the equity (and control), do I need to compromise in order to win the main game, which is being able to finally live my Life’s Purpose within a reasonable period of time?

At least, that’s how I would look at it …

Decision Point # 2: How much of my soul do I sell?!

Once you’ve decided to sell (part of) your soul to the devil … or, in this case part of your company to the Sharks, it becomes a matter of how much to sell, and here, the trend is clear: our readers want to give away a minority stake. WJ was clear and succinct on this:

I would give away equity only to the point of still being in control.

Whereas, Trainee Investor sees both sides:

Either I would only give away minority equity on terms that left me with control and relatively limited fetters on my ability to run the company OR the investor would have to provide something more than just a monetary investment (such as the ability to significantly expand distribution in a manner which would otherwise have been beyond me).

Here’s how I look at it: the girls – in this case – reached decision point # 1 by deciding that they did wish to give away some equity in return for some benefit (cash and expertise/guidance from the Sharks), otherwise they would not be on the show.

So, now they need to decide what to give away and how much … and, this boils down to simple mathematics.

But, “wait” you say “surely you can’t give away control?”

And, I say: “you already have”

You see, as soon as you sign the shareholder’s agreement, you will find that your control over the company is no longer entirely yours, no matter what equity you still hold: 1% or 99%.

The shareholder’s agreement will be full of “by unanimous decision of the board”, and you can be sure that the Shark sits on that board!

I know, because I have been a 51% joint venture partner and a 40% joint venture partner and it made not an iota of difference … I still had a similar lack of effective control in both cases …

… I have even been a 100% owner and my clients and bankers still held the real control over my company. But, does it really matter all that much? Aren’t we all interested in making the company a success?!

‘Control’ is not all its cracked up to be 😉

So, if you are giving away control – and you will, trust me – just by entering into an agreement with an outside investor, then its time to start looking at what you get. In this case:

– $350k for 40% equity + Barbara’s guidance, OR

– $350k for 40% equity + finance/distribution/administration support for 11% equity + the guidance of 3 mega-millionaires.

To me the decision isn’t even close: once you’ve decided that 40% of your company is worth $350k then tell me where you can buy a complete operational and administrative infrastructure for your business (not to mention close a guaranteed line of funding) for less than 11% / 40% x $350k = $100k?

Folks, it’s the bargain of the century, but you have to be a Shark to see it 😉

BTW: remember that ’emotional v rational’ thing that I mentioned towards the beginning of this post? Instead of the simple math that I would have used to make the correct choice, Luis summed up exactly how they made their emotional choice:

Unbelievable! They made their decision on “I really like Barbara, like I really like her”. Barbara read them right “You got spunk” and at the end “…you are going to be happy”.

Unbelievable, indeed!

The story of banking ….

Posted on by
4

Forget the “banks make money from thin air” assertions at the beginning of this video, but watch the cartoon rendition of the creation of the modern-day banking system for an understanding of how banks really work.

While it is true that the dollar is no longer backed by gold (in 1933, President Franklin D Roosevelt suspended the standard and revoked gold as universal legal tender for debts), just remember that each George Washington is still backed by “the full faith and credit of the United States government” … now that should be enough comfort for anybody 🙂

The Myth of Compounding Interest ….

Posted on by
14

einstein-compound-interest-rule-of-72Albert Einstein was wrong … the financial experts are wrong … and, we’re about to debunk perhaps the greatest – and, most misleading – of all finanical ‘truisms’ …

… and, you’ll be able to say that you read it here first 😉

You see, the cornerstone of almost all personal finance books and philosophies is the so-called ‘Power of Compounding Interest’ … if you need a primer, check out this little video that I ran last Sunday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEB6y4DklNY

There is no disputing that compounding interest has immense power, but only when compared to so-called simple (or ‘flat’) interest; use the Rule of 72 (that Albert is writing on the blackboard) to see for yourself: simply divide any old interest rate into 72 to see how many years it will take to double your money …

… for example, at 10% interest, you would double your money in just over 7 years.

Neat.

Neat, but useless …

You see, Luis gently reminded me of this blog’s “motto”:

Now, find out how you can make $7 million in 7 years … no scams, no schemes … just good old financial advice!

As Luis pointed out, we aren’t trying to double our money in 7 years … we’re trying to make $7 million in 7 years!

Unless you’ve already got $3.5 million in the bank, you simply won’t get there … and, if you do have $3.5 million in the bank, you’re not reading this blog, you’re reading the one about “How to get to $170 million in 7 years” 😉

You see, in order to work, compounding interest needs a key ingredient … one that we don’t have much of:

Time.

In order to produce a large outcome (say $7 million) – starting from a small base (say $50,000) – compounding needs BOTH a high compound growth rate and a lot of time.

For example, if you start a business that has the potential to deliver an annual compound growth rate of 50%, you still need to wait 13 years before you reach the magical $7 million.

If you choose a more ‘mundane’ investment, such as managed funds that might deliver a 9% return (after fees), you could wait 38 years and still barely crack your first million.

And, if you manage to save 30% of your salary (say, $50k starting salary, growing 3% per year) and invest it in those same managed funds, you should manage to crack the $1 million mark in ‘just’ 21 years, and you will be well on-track to write your own blog: “How I enslaved my way to $7 million in just 40 years”.

Compound interest isn’t a ‘force’, it’s an effect that occurs when you simply sit back and don’t do anything!

Do you think you should be handsomely rewarded for that? Do you seriously think that sitting on your hands will propel you into the top 1% of Net Worth in, say, the USA?

Or, is your goal simply to save your way to the biggest Number that you can achieve before you are retired? If so, compounding is an effect that you should study very closely.

But, this is a blog about how to get Rich(er) Quick(er); it’s for those with Large Numbers / Soon Dates …

…  to us, compounding interest is slavery … if this is your prime investing strategy you enslave yourself to a life of work and frugal living, running the risk that being able to truly live your Life’s Purpose will remain just a dream.

Moneytopia?

Posted on by
7

moneytopia

Many thanks to my new blogging friend, Kohti, for pointing me to an interesting new online game purporting to teach me all about money …

…. but – with all the greatest respect to the game’s authors – if I had played this game 7 years ago, I think I would have been depressed.

You see, it encourages you to create a character (mine was a 20-something year old, single male earning around $24k p.a.), and make some buying decisions:

– some mandatory (accommodation; clothes; car; computer; etc.), and

– some optional … I didn’t choose any of these at all.

I also had to choose a Big Dream and a time-frame to aim for; for some weird technical reason I couldn’t put in what I really (would have) wanted back then, so I chose a $4million retirement goal, aiming to achieve that in 7 years.

Now, I tried to make reasonable decisions and spend/save money as I felt that i would have back then, so when I was given a choice like this one:

Picture 1

… well, I mostly chose the zero-cost option (in this case, “stay at home and ride the bike”). On the plus side, whenever I was asked to “pay my bills” … I simply chose the sensible option and paid them all, giving them scant attention:

Picture 2

…. anyhow, that’s one example of the benefit of a frugal lifestyle: choose a low-cost lifestyle and you can at least sleep comfortably that you can easily pay you meager bills as/when they fall due 🙂

BTW: Rather than choose some set amount to invest (that would have required more thought), I simply transferred money to my Investment Account whenever I had a couple of thousand dollars saved up … no doubt, I would have achieved a slightly better outcome (better compounding) if I had transferred the money weekly rather than 4 or 5 times a year, but I am sure the effect would not have been huge.

The only problem with this sort of ‘frugal living’ style of wealth management?

It doesn’t come close to helping you achieve any sort of Life’s Purpose that involves not working and/or travel; here’s how I did, with 9 months to go before I wanted to ‘retire’:

Picture 3

You see, the problem with this game – and, all the books/blogs/financial advisers peddling this sort of nonsense – is that they tell you how to maximize your savings, but not how to achieve the real goal: which is to reach your Number by your Date … and, for most people that seems to mean Getting Rich(er) Quick(er).

The funny thing is that this game encourages you to seek a mentor … see the guy pictured in the circle? He’s the Richest Guy In Town and he’s there to help you (according to the game’s instructions) …

… except that he conveniently forgets to tell you any of the real ‘secrets’ as to how HE became so rich! As playing the game makes patently obvious, he sure didn’t get there by saving / investing his meager salary 😉

What the game is missing is a ‘start a business’ button; nor does it have an ‘invest in real-estate’ button … so, we have to rely on a risky maximum compound growth rate for our investments of 12.5% (and, I even had to survive a market crash!) or ‘safer’ returns much lower than that.

In other words, this game proves that it’s impossible to make $7million in 7 years (or even ‘just’ $4 million in 7 years) by following ‘standard financial advice’. Don’t believe me?! Then check this out:

Picture 6

Go ahead and try the game … it could save you a great many years of otherwise lost ‘investing time’ by showing you what NOT to do 😉

Poll: What Is Your Number?

Posted on by
9

What Is Your Number

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

I’m not sure why I have never asked this question directly before, but I would dearly love ALL of my readers to take the 20 seconds that it would take to let us all know what Number you are aiming for (i.e. how much you need in order to stop work and finally live your life)?

Of course, no such poll would mean anything without also knowing when you want to finally stop work … so, please take another 12 seconds to make your selection below:

What Is Your Date

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Thanks!

… and, as always, the more comments that we get below, the more we’ll have to talk about when the results are published 🙂

7 miljoonaa 7 vuotta

Posted on by
2

finland

… that’s just my way of saying hei [hello] to my Finnish readers!

It seems that I have a few because I’ve been tracing some backlinks to my blog and found this one: http://www.taloudellinenriippumattomuus.com/ which (thanks to Google translate) asks if I am one mg/ml of the investors?

Now, this is a very clever way [AJC: if you understand metric measures, such as ‘milligrams’ and ‘milliliters’!] of challenging us to decide if we are the ‘one in a thousand’ investors who can actually make money trading in the stock market [AJC: presumably, this is a Finnish blog focusing on trading stocks?] … in fact, in this article the author is specifically discussing Day Traders; now, day trading is something that I have never attempted!

Probably for good reason …

The author cites a Taiwanese study that found that (after costs) only 0.16% (or 1.6 per thousand) of Day Traders actually made a profit!

So, why do the other 99.84% do it?

Well the author says (or quotes, I’m not sure which):

While day traders undoubtedly realize that other day traders lose money, stories of successful day traders may circulate in non-representative proportions, thus giving the impression that success is more frequent that it is. Heavy day traders, who earn gross profits but net losses, may not fully consider trading costs when assessing their own ability.

Now, this is very interesting because you could insert almost ANY speculative activity (e.g. flipping real-estate, investing in gold and futures, FOREX, options, stock trading, speculative business ventures, etc., etc.) in place of the words “Day Trader” and I think you will be able to draw the same conclusions:

1. The vast majority of speculators lose money,

2. Of those that do make money, most of those will realize that they, too, are actually operating at a loss if they take into account the true costs of their time, money, operating expenses, etc.,

3. However, the ‘losers’ keep chasing their losses because of the VERY FEW real success stories (and, the plenty of fake/scam/exaggerated ‘success’ stories) that become too well publicized and glorified.

For our other Finnish readers, I should probably also acknowledge references to this blog on another personal finance site (actually, a forum): http://keskustelu.kauppalehti.fi/5/i/keskustelu/thread.jspa?threadID=137213&start=15&tstart=0 for an interesting discussion about what to do when your mortgage is finally paid off; it seems that one of the readers has been tracking my ‘rules’ on this subject:

And the capital not used optimally if the housing is free of debt. Harvat yrityksetkään toimivat kokonaan ilman velkaa. Few firms are not entirely without debt. Tällä kaverilla on kaksi hyvää sijoitussääntöä: This guy has two good investment rule:

http://7million7years.com/2008/02/04/how-much-to-spend-on-a-house/ http://7million7years.com/2008/02/04/how-much-to-spend-on-a-house/

1) Asunnossa kiinni olevan oman pääoman osuuden tulisi olla < 20% net worthistä 1) The apartment attached to the capital base should be <20% of Net Worth
2) Kaiken muun kulutustavaran (auto, huonekalut ym.) osuus net worthistä on oltava < 5% 2) All other consumer goods (car, furniture, etc.) accounted for net Worth must be <5%

Nämä takaavat sen että >75% omaisuudesta on jossain tuottavassa käytössä, kuten vaikka osakesalkussa tai sijoitusasunnoissa. These will ensure that> 75% of the property is a productive use, such as even though the stock portfolio or investment homes.

Minulla täyttyvät molemmat ehdot, mitenkäs muilla palstalaisilla? I have met both conditions, palstalaisilla How did the other? En edes laske autoa ym. pikkusälää mukaan henkilökohtaisen taseeni loppusummaan. I do not even calculate a car, etc. small stuff “personal taseeni the final sum.

Thanks for a great summary, Jni, Google Translate isn’t perfect, but I’m sure my readers will get the gist 🙂

BTW for those who haven’t worked it out yet, 7 miljoonaa 7 vuotta is how you would say 7 million 7 years in Finland.

A primer on compounding interest …

Posted on by
4

If you want to understand the difference between ‘simple’ interest and ‘compounding’ interest – and, if you want to understand why it makes a difference as to how often you compound that interest – then watch this video (until the presenter starts writing with a blue pen … from that point on, only watch if you are a mathematician) …

Make the move ….

Posted on by
6

house on moundGuys, as the economy improves (if it improves) interest rates will surely rise, as they already are in other countries.

If you haven’t already done so, seriously think about buying some fire-sale real-estate and locking in the the interest rate for 30 years; one strategy – especially if the banks won’t let you take out a 30 year fixed rate mortgage on an investment – is to buy your NEXT home now (it need not be any bigger/better than your current), taking the 30 year fixed on that one, and keeping your current as a rental.

I’m not sure if that’s exactly what Lee was thinking when he asked:

Although the market in our area has held up fairly well through this housing crisis, it’s definitely a buyers market.  I don’t think I’d get top value for my home.  So, I’ve seriously been considering renting it out after we move.  If I did rent it, then I could go a couple different routes:

1. Refinance current home to 30 year (to help cash flow) and take enough cash out to put 20% down on our new home.

2. Refinance current home to a 30 year but take no cash out to get the payment down to a very low amount to have a very good positive cash flow.  Then put 20% down out of pocket on the new home.

3. Take out a home equity loan on the current home just to cover the 20% down payment on the new home loan (30 year).

4. Just go ahead and sell our current home so I can take advantage of the tax free capital gains … I could then use part of it to put 20% down on our next home … and use the remaining as a down payment on one or two rental properties.

5. I have to throw in one scenario just because of that little guy I call Mr. Conservative that sits on one of my shoulders, lol!  I could just pay my current home off within the next 2 years or so, then rent it out with a large cash flow, and use that cash flow to pay the mortgage of the new home we buy.

6. Maybe something I’m not even thinking of?

I think I see a case of paralysis by analysis coming on, so we had better head this off at the pass …

… while I can’t give direct personal advice (as I told Lee), I can point out that in cases like this it’s always good to ask yourself a couple of key questions before Mr. Conservative starts to get very vocal (in your subconscious) and you end up taking no action at all, so I suggested that Lee run some numbers:

a) What would be the situation on your current home, if you just took out a new (or refi) FIXED rate 30 yr mortgage, and put tenants in … what would be your new monthly mortgage payment and what monthly rent could you conservatively [it’s good to have Mr Conservative on your shoulders] expect?

b) After pocketing the excess of 75% of rents over mortgage from a) above – or, making up the deficit on the excess of mortgage over 75% of the rent – how much per month do you think you could save from your other sources of income assuming for the moment that you have FREE accommodation for yourself somewhere?

[AJC: the 75% of rents is to allow a buffer for vacancies and other costs of renting … just a very rough approx. for now]

Once you answer these two questions, my feeling is that the best scenario for you will become obvious … I hope 🙂

In Lee’s case, here are his current numbers:

3 bed / 2 bath 1450 sq ft. home in a great location.
Cost Basis: $158,000
Current value: $210,000
$96,000 (9 years 6 months) remaining on a 15 yr mortgage @ 4.625%
Current P&I repayment: $1,042 per month

And, if he refinanced the $96k remaining balance his bank has given him two options for a 30-year fixed loan:

$508/month @ 4.875% Closing costs: $2,000
$493/month @ 4.625% Closing costs: $2,700

For rent, Lee thinks “being ultra conservative” $900/month to $1100/month, which means:

Using 75% of excess over mortgage ($300) and assume living in FREE accommodations, I could easily save $3,000/month because that’s what I save currently even with my $1042 mortgage.  Throw in not paying our current mortgage and having $300 in additional cash flow and $4,000+/month would not be unreasonable.

For now those are the numbers, although I have to say the 75% of excess over mortgage number is probably high considering taxes and insurance on this place are about $200/month.  But as you said, these are rough numbers for now.

So, Lee is getting closer to being able to make a meaningful decision; here are the steps that I suggested:

STEP 1: OK, it seems to me that if you decided to keep your current home as a rental, you would lose money if you stuck to your your current $1k pm mortgage, and produce a positive cashflow of $100 to $200 p.m. if you refinanced.

STEP 2: It seems to me that your $3k pm savings rate will be enough to cover the expected $200k mortgage on your new home. Right? BTW: You WILL fix for 30 years, too (because this will become an ideal 2nd rental, eventually)?

STEP 3: Next, all you need to think about is how to raise the deposit; well, if you don’t have it now, go back to Step 1 and revisit these numbers, assuming that you refi, say, $150k instead of $96k. I’m guessing that you’ll be close to B/E – or, a slight monthly loss – on the rental?

STEP 4: You keep 25% of the rent (plus another $200, say) to cover taxes, ins, and contingencies PLUS you have plenty of excess monthly savings to cover you, until this ‘provisioning fund’ builds up.

Now, what do YOU think Lee should do?! Here’s what he thinks:

I think the smartest thing would be to refi without taking any equity out so that I have a nice cushion of cash flow.  I would then need to come out of pocket with the down payment for the new home which I should be able to do, and even if I need a little help, I could always get a small home equity loan on the rental temporarily.  But I feel pretty confident I could raise enough cash to cover the down payment without having to do that.

My next step…develop my plan of action.

Take Lee’s advice: model these questions to develop a plan of action that works for you … and, take it! 🙂