Tag Archives: Investing

Advice for a small investor …

Posted on by
1

Glossary asks:

With limited funds at ones disposal, say in the 10K to 40K range, what are the arguments for and against buying outright low price stocks to accumulate more shares than would be possible with higher priced stocks. Or, alternately, of using call or put options to purchase stocks of any share price?

To which the ‘common wisdom’ response was:

Whether you are a “big investor” or a “small investor” doesn’t matter as much as you think, IMHO. Nobody likes to lose their money. Everybody needs the same general principles when it comes to investing.

Figure out your risk tolerance. The market is volatile. If your investment drops 10% will you be up nights puking your guts out into the porcelin throne?

Never put all your eggs in one basket. This means only 2%-4% in any one investment AND make your individual investments in different types of investments such as large cap value and medium cap growth.

But, you know my take on this by now: if you diversify your investments, then expect to get ‘market returns’ or less …

LESS to the extent of fees and the losses that you can expect from mis-timing the market … which the Dalbar Study shows will be often and the cost of these mistakes will be very, very, expensive:

Fees: Of these, the fees are the reason why even the most disciplined investors (even 75% of Mutual Funds) perform worse than the market.

Market Timing: But, it is the second – the market timing risks – that mostly affect smaller/individual investors: it’s the reason why the Dalbar Study found that during a long period where the S&P 500 grew at an average rate of 11.9% ‘smaller investors’ only managed a paltry 3.9% return … they would have been better off in CD’s!

So, here is my suggestion:

A. If you want ‘passive investments’ and are satisfied with market returns (circa 9% AFTER inflation … current market aside) then plonk your money in a low-cost S&P 500 Index Fund and let it sit until you retire … add to this investment as much and as often as you can.

OR

B. If you want (need?) ‘above average’ market returns – and, are prepared to ‘gamble while you learn’ (the price of an investment education) – then pick an investment that you can study up on and DO NOT diversify into that asset class; instead, put all of your eggs into no more than 4 or 5 baskets (i.e. stocks and/or real-estate holdings) … but, recognize that you ARE gambling-while-learning, so that you can get the higher returns that you crave.

OR

C. If B. is not for you – or it simply doesn’t work out for you when you are still only ‘gambling’ with small amounts, then it’s not for you at all! Quit while you are not too far behind and then refer to A.

That’s it! 🙂

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?

Instant Net Worth Fix?

Posted on by
9

personalfinance-main_full

What is the relationship between your income and your Net Worth? Does paying down a mortgage increase your Net Worth … these are the comments made by Diane to a reader who said that they had income that was going into CD’s, but still had a mortgage:

[If] you are paying down your mortgage some – rather than just interest …  then your net worth may be going up [?]

I told Diane that it doesn’t work that way ( Where Diane is right that putting money into CD’s while you hold a mortgage is probably a sub-optimal financial decision, it’s NOT because your Net Worth would change … paying down your mortgage does NOT change your Net Worth – it just reduces both your CASH (on hand) and MORTGAGE balance columns in your NWiQ profile …

… your total of Assets – Liabilities (hence, your Net Worth) remains the same!

Diane took me to task:

I assume [that you would be] applying income to [your] net worth and that is NOT reflected in the assets/debt columns of the networth calculations – it’s future cash for the most part (those who have incomes ;)) — or did I miss how else the income is reflected other than as a header above (along with our education)???

These are very good ‘technical’ questions, that I can explain (for those who are business/finance minded) as follows:

Income/expenses is/are a bit like a business’ P&L (Profit and Loss Statement), and your Net Worth is like a Balance Sheet … the former is a ‘work in progress’ and the latter is a ‘snapshot’ at a specific point in time.

Both cash and loans sit on the Balance Sheet … or, in our case, on our statement of Net Worth. Simply moving amounts around does not change either. Your Balance Sheet only changes if you make or lose money, grow or reduce assets (as long as you are not turning them into cash or some other balance sheet item).

Similarly for your Net Worth: decreasing a positive bank balance (on one side of your Net Worth statement) in order to similarly decrease a negative house balance (a.k.a. a mortgage) on the other side hasn’t changed anything – except where you keep various components of your Net Worth.

On the other hand, earning more profits (reflected in a businesses P&L) is similar to earning a salary or other income for a person (income) provided that you don’t spend it all (expenses) …

… they all help to increase your Net Worth (or improve the value of the business, as reflected in an improved Balance Sheet).

BUT, it doesn’t matter if you ‘store’ that extra income in a bank account (i.e. the CASH column of your NWiQ profile) or in your mortgage (effectively reducing it) … your Net Worth goes up by the amount of income that you saved since you last calculated your Net Worth.

As Scott says:

As long as you are living in your home, it is a liability and costing you money if anything.

That is, unless you are prepared to tap into that home’s equity and use that money to invest.

Yes, it’s what you ’save’ from your income (i.e. after expenses) that goes into improving your Net Worth regardless of whether you use it to build up your bank balace, pay down debt, or – as Scott suggests – buy a new asset.

Anatomy of a Commercial RE Investment – Part 3

Posted on by
12

Hopefully, my last post gave you the numbers, and today’s will explain the ‘deal’:

Summary

So, here is the crux of the deal:

1. I have a property with one good tenant (they are cashed up … because I just gave them the cash!) and an easily rentable smaller area for a second tenant.

2. If I borrow 75% at 6.5% fixed for 7 years, I get $63,000 cash (i.e. TOTAL INCOME – TOTAL EXPENSES) in Year 1 to spend (well, keep some in reserve against future repairs, vacancies, etc.).

3. My deposit is $700,000 so that $63,000 is a 9% return on my own money (subject to those unforeseen costs that I mentioned in 2.) … not a bad return on cash AND I get all the upside on the property.

4. If the second tenancy is vacant for any reason, I still almost break-even.

5. If the second tenancy rents at only $6 / sq. foot I still net $43k per year; if I get $10 / sq. foot I net $83k.

6. Properties in this area sold for $80k – $120k per sq. foot; even though the market has softened somewhat (commercial generally works on a slower up/down cycle than residential) I am buying it for $60 / sq. foot … clearly, if a condo. developer knocks on my door in 7 years and offers me $120 / sq. foot, I’ve doubled the whole $2.6 Mill. (not incl. Realtor’s commissions) purchase price!

Note: Think about that – when people say that RE only increases with inflation, therefore stocks are a better option: I make $63k a year less costs (est. 25% as a contingency), say, 6.75% net. The property then increases to $3.4 Mill. over the next 7 years (that’s only inflation):

I earn: $362k in rents (after the 25% contingency against, repairs, and with a 3% rent increase each year)

plus: I net $700k on the sale of the property (I’m expecting to make close to double that, but let’s just accept inflation for now).

I return: That’s a total of $1.362 against the $700,000 that I put in (the bank put up the rest, and they’ve already been paid interest and their money back in these numbers) or 11.5% on my money

I expect: But, that’s only if the building appreciates by inflation; I expect to net at least $1.5 Mill. on the sale of the property (if not $2.5 Mill.!) which brings the return up to 20% … secured by real-estate, no less!

7. If no purchaser does come along, I am earning a neat 9%+ on my $700k until somebody does buy it!

So, by all measures, this is a great deal … some common sense and some simple number-crunching tells me that, no ‘cap rates’, ‘proforma’s, or any other complex financial manipulations necessary.

BTW: I did a quick ‘drive by’ but haven’t even been inside, yet. It doesn’t matter … I won’t be ‘living there’ 🙂

Next step: tell the broker to make the offer!

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 😉

A journey with George …

Posted on by
5

Perhaps I just like this video because the ‘talking head’ is a fellow Aussie – although, I don’t know who he is or what his credentials are (I do know that if you watch all three of the videos listed on his blog you’ll end up with an ad for a new ‘personal finance’ educational board-game) …

… but, I do like his neat little whiteboard summary of the problem of ‘investing’ to chase capital appreciation. This was the sort of ‘wrong thinking’ that fueled the property market booms, both here and in Australia.

And, after every boom comes the bust 🙂

How do you manage real estate risks?

Posted on by
Reply

My most recent post – of a long series – on 401k’s v real-estate (which is a dumb comparison: like comparing the container with the drink that you might put into it … when, what we are really trying to compare is Mutual Funds v Real-Estate) sparked a long series of detailed comments about the risks and rewards of real-estate …

… I encourage you to read that post and the associated comments here. The discussion culminated in a great series of comments/questions by Jeff who also asked:

I agree, the “technical risks” need be manageable. But, how much does the management of these risks (infusion of cash when necessary) reduce your return?
For instance, do you keep a safety net for possible negative cash flows (high-yield savings account, CD)? Do you then bundle the two investments (investment property return plus safety net return) to determine the actual return of the investment property?
Do you pull cash out-of-pocket to cover short falls? Since you don’t receive any additional growth from this new cash and the new cash is added to your capital investment amount, it drastically reduces your present and future return from the investment.
Do you borrow more money to cover the cash flows? Since this borrowed money provides no additional return it puts you in severe negative leverage situation. Further, that loan has to be paid back with future cash flows from the investment property that you were expecting to give you the return your initially expected–for lack of a better term–compounding the damage of the negative cash flow.
Do you use a cash flows from another property to cover the short falls? This seems to be the best solution for the property receiving the infusion of cash, but to what extent doe sit reduce the return of the other investment property–by reinvesting its cash flows in an investment that provides no additional return? Put differently, it is a loss of opportunity to invest those cash flows in something that will bring additional return–rather than saving your RE investment from foreclosure.

When you experience short falls in RE investing, which one of these options is best? What did you do when you experienced cash short falls, and why? …and what effect did/does it have on your annualized return?

As I said, great questions, but the first comment that I would make (actually, did make) is:

I would caution you to remember the phrase: “paralysis by analysis” … in a practical sense, once I satisfy myself that (a) a certain type of investment is within my skill/interest level, AND (b) is LIKELY to meet my investment targets, AND (c) I can cover the risks – usually through a ‘reserve’ which may or may not be sitting in a shoebox with the word ‘RESERVE’ etched in the side, then … shoot … I’ll close my eyes and just go for it!

In other words, if you are going to be a success in real-estate investing – indeed, any endeavor where you expect to achieve more than the average person expects/can achieve – then you need to have a bias for action.

Often, we have to proceed in a world of imperfect information …

… magically, once we jump in a lot of these types of questions just seem to fall away!

But, to try and answer Jeff’s question:

Technically, YES the ‘reserve’ is part of the investment and lowers the returns e.g. if you are earning 20% on the investment and only 4% on the CD’s sitting in ‘reserve’ then obviously the actual return lies somewhere between the two.

BUT pulling ‘free cashflow’ out of one property to help service another, doesn’t actually reduce the return of the first … but, the amount of cash that you put IN to the second property affects ITS return.

But, at the end of the day, it’s the COMBINATION of all of these returns that counts: will you, or will you not make your Number, or whatever target you set?

The only real benefit of analyzing the return on each individual investment once you have made it is if you then intend to do something about it e.g. trade it for something better …