Newsletters. Worth the 'paper' they are written on?

Ryan asks:

I’d like your opinion on investment newsletters such as those offered by the guys over at Tycoon Research. Is it possible to use this in your money making 201 phase. At the moment I’m still in making money 101 but I can’t shake the idea of leveraging someone else’s knowledge to make you money. Of course, as with all things, you should know enough not to be taken for ride.

This is a really easy one!

Does Warren Buffet:

a. Write about his stock picks and earn a fixed fee for each one that he publishes?

b. Invest in his stock picks on behalf of his customers and take a 1% ‘cut’ on the money invested?

c. Invest in his stock picks on his behalf (and, on behalf of the other shareholders in his own company)?

Let’s see:

a. Might produce $100k – $1 million per year revenue, depending on how many subscribers you can get.

b. Might produce $1 million – $100 million per year revenue, depending upon how much money you can get under your management.

c. Well, how much did we say Warren Buffett is worth?

Newsletter publishers are on the bottom of the wealth totem-pole, so I would give their ideas about as much credence as I would give to anybody who makes their daily living by giving you information.

I would only take my information from somebody who has already made 10 times as I want to make from doing the exact thing that I want to do …

… so, if you can find a newsletter publisher who fits that criteria (and, I’m sure they’re out there, for the same reasons that I’m here), then go for it!

Otherwise, you’re going to have to learn how to do research (BTW: much of what I’ve seen in the Tycoon Report that you mention falls into the ‘how’ category … I read it!), then do it yourself …

If it’s stocks that you’re interested in, you could do worse than start by reading Rule # 1 Investing by Phil Town.

According to this, I'm financially dead!

I came across this financial health check on an Australian government web-site, and I must admit that the test itself is sound  and you should try it NOW at this link before reading on …

dum di dum di dum [waiting music]

Finished already? It’s a quick one …

… did you see how it provided useful links to basic Making Money 101 reading material for any question where you may not have selected the ‘best’ answer? Nice, huh?

But, if you’re an avid follower of Personal Finance books and blogs, the answers may have seemed a little obvious … and, you may have even disagreed with a couple.

Let’s see:

As you know by now, my purpose for sharing this type of basic PF ‘wisdom’ on this site is to show you exactly why so-called conventional wisdom fails because it is almost always designed to deliver a conventional result … but, we aren’t satisfied with merely achieving conventional results, are we?!

So, here is the test – reproduced, with the most obvious answer bolded (I haven’t checked the test results to see if they agree … these just seem the most obvious answers to me) – but, I didn’t say it was the ‘right’ answer 🙂

I have added my comments underneath each question:

1    Do you save any of your money?
a) Yes. I try to put some aside for bills.
b) Yes. I keep a bit back from each pay because I am saving for something I want.
c) Of course I save, to pay for bills, to buy things I want, for a rainy day and for my retirement.
d) It would be nice to have enough left to save.

For me, the answer was None of The Above: since I have transitioned (almost) from Making Money 201 to Making Money 301, it is calculating the correct amount of ‘safe monthly withdrawal’ from my ‘nest egg’ that determines that I have enough for bills, to buy things, and for a ‘rainy day’, as I am already retired. Unfortunately, if you don’t do this calculation well (in my case, 7 years, but for most people 10 to 20 years) before your expected retirement, your nest egg simply won’t be enough to support your intended lifestyle.

2    Do you keep track of your money?
a) No, I have a life.
b) My bank statements help me do this.
c) I have a rough idea of where my money goes and where it comes from.
d) I have a budget plan.

I have a confession to make: I have NEVER kept track of my money. This is a fault but, contrary to conventional financial wisdom, actually not wealth threatening unless, one of the potential disasters (that  will point out in a future) post does occur. So, while conventional wisdom says to have a detailed budget plan that you should stick to, I have found that when I was ‘poor’ and when I was ‘rich’ a “rough idea of where my money goes and where it comes from” is sufficient.

3    How much do you pay towards your credit card accounts each month?
a) As much as I can.
b) I can’t always make the payments and sometimes use one credit card to pay off another.
c) The minimum amount.
d) I only borrow money for something I really need and when I am sure I can keep up the              payments.

The answer here, for me and for everybody, should be None of the Above: if you cannot pay your credit card balance off IN FULL each and every month, don’t use it. That was our policy through financial ‘thick and thin’ and it should work for you. As for borrowing to buy ‘stuff’ … don’t! I remember that we took ‘advantage’ of an interest-free purchase once …. it was a pain in the rear-end to keep up with the payments (they want you to, so that they can kick in the ‘fine print’ excessive interest payments) and we didn’t do it again … neither should you.

4    What would you do with a windfall?
a) Pay off my bills and put some money towards my loans.
b) Buy something I really need.
c) Save it.
d) Spend it.

The answer here is both All of the Above and None of the Above and deserves its own post; but, for now: Reserve whatever your accountant says that you need to pay any taxes on the windfall; then take 5% to 10% of what’s left and spend it like a crazy gorilla (go ahead … don’t be a miser); then if you owe money (on consumer loans), pay those down until there’s either no loan left or no windfall left (there are exceptions); then put aside 50% of the balance for investments; then pay cash for something that you really need (do you REALLY need that car? If so, go ahead and buy it!); then invest whatever is left. Notice that this only makes sense if you do it in this exact order 🙂

5    If you were in the market for a new car and loan what would you do?
a) Shop around for the best deal for both the car and the loan.
b) Take advice from a friend or family member.
c) Find a car I like and get the finance wherever I can.

None of the above: In ANY stage of my financial life I’d pay cash for less car than I want. Period.

6    Will you have enough money when you retire?
a) I am far too young to worry about this.
b) I have superannuation and I am pretty sure I’ll have enough when I retire.
c) I have made sure that I’ve got a plan and I know I’ll have enough when I retire.

Of course the answer is c) and we have the plan all laid out for you (the exact, same planning process that I followed) on http://7m7y.com … find it, read it, do it!

7    Would you be protected if your house burnt down?
a) I don’t know if I’m insured or not.
b) I am fully insured.
c) I have some insurance but I am not quite sure what is covered or the level of that cover.

Of course, your answer must be b), but, when you have enough money, why pay somebody else to carry the risk for you? So, while I was on my journey I carried a sh*t-load of insurance, including millions of dollars in life/trauma cover. Now, I carry a $20k deductible on my contents cover; full house/building insurance (a $1 mill. house fire would hurt at little); no personal life/trauma insurance – we do carry health insurance because with a young family we don’t know what will come up and it saves us carrying large chunks of cash … but, we could just as easily ‘self-insure’ this, too.

8    If you received a large bill for car repairs how would you pay for it?
a) Withdraw the money from my savings or take out a loan and work out the best way of paying it back.
b) With my credit card and pay it back sometime.
c) From a special account I keep for emergencies.

For me, the answer is always b) – plonk it on my credit card then pay the bill in full when it comes up … we always have enough cash on hand (not as an emergency fund) because it’s hard to be always fully-invested (in the current market, having cash on hand IS an investment!). My thinking for you, though, differs from the conventional answer that is bolded: I think the correct answer is a) and have already posted on this.

9    What would you do if you received a phone call offering you a chance to make big money with a new investment opportunity?
a) Take up the offer, no one becomes rich without taking risks.
b) Consider it carefully and seek qualified advice.
c) Ignore it. It is unlikely that anyone would make such a good offer unless there is a catch.

I think that most people would say b) but I think that the people who created this questionnaire agree with me that c) is the correct answer: by the time you see, read, hear, are told about, given a hot tip on, read in the tea-leaves, had a vision about ANY investment, it’s already too late for YOU to make money on it! Sorry, that’s just the way it works …

10    If you lost your partner are you sure your family would be OK financially?
a) My partner is too young for me to worry about this.
b) They will be OK as I have ensured that our finances are in order.

OR
c) I am reasonably sure they will be OK as I have some insurance.

For most people the answer is a combination of b) and c) … from the way the question is written, b) is the ‘obvious’ answer, though. The only correct answer is b), though, as insurance becomes less and less important as you build up your own financial reserves … until you reach that point, insurance is really PART of making sure that your ‘finances are in order’ anyway.

Did you find it as interesting as I did that in many cases the ‘correct’ answer wasn’t even one of the options provided?

If you also noticed this – while you were doing the ‘test’ for yourself, and before I pointed it out – then you have a real chance to be an ‘unconventional financial success’, too 🙂

More on Emergency Funds …

The best way to give up your ‘day job’ is to watch my Live Show this Thursday @ 8pm CST (9pm EST / 6pm PST) at http://ajcfeed.com ….

__________________________

Recently I wrote a couple of posts on Emergency Funds; my goal was to blow a hole in the standard “save a 6 month Emergency Fund” myth … that’s right: myth!

Most of the comments (and, they were really good) related to my suggested use of HELOCs as a possible replacement for 6 month’s cash slowly wasting away in a CD – and, I have just posted a follow-up to address this.

But, Meg comments from a slightly different angle that I think addresses the core of my original post:

I hate having loads of cash sitting around earning less than the rate of inflation. And I consider 3 months of expenses for me to be loads of cash. Plus I have tons of liquidity in the form of a total stock market index fund. This is from where I have drawn money when I totaled my car unexpectedly (ins only covered half the value of a comparable newer car), when I needed a down payment for real estate purchases, etc.

That has worked great over the last 5+ years of a bull market. But 2 weeks ago I was presented with an unexpected real estate investing opportunity, which I jumped on. I was of course going to put 20% down (to minimize the rate, avoid PMI, be conservative, etc). Then the market began its tumble. I was AGONIZING over the loss (it would still technically be a gain to sell, but still it sucks to sell at a market cycle low).

Then Meg, found a fortuitous solution:

Luckily for me I have a wealthy and generous grandfather who volunteered completely unprovoked to lend me the money for the down payment rather than have me sell stocks at a cycle low. He has plenty of money sitting in bonds and cash that he doesn’t have any better use for, I suppose, than to thrill a granddaughter with a 2.5% loan.

Lucky for Meg, indeed. But, an anti-climax for those of us who are not so fortunate!

So what would you do? Rich relatives aside, I see three choices:

1.  Put 6 Month’s cash into CD’s as an emergency fund

2. Put 6 month’s cash into an Index Fund and let it sit

3. Put 6 month’s cash into an Index Fund, sell at a 20% ‘loss’ to buy the real-estate

Now, these aren’t exactly comparable choices (we really need a table: do/don’t buy the property across the top, and CD’s/Index Funds down the side … and to be really fancy, we’d need a cube adding emergency/no emergency along the edge), but we can at least illustrate some key thoughts by examining them mathematically.

And, I will consider a 30 year investing horizon, because that allows me to guarantee an 8% return for the Index Fund (it will probably do better, maybe even 12%, but then there could be fees and commissions to consider).

Put 6 Month’s cash into CD’s as an emergency fund

If Meg is on $100,000 and paying 25% tax, she would need to sock away $37,500 to provide a 6 month after-tax salary emergency fund.

This might take some time, so let’s pick up at the point where she achieves this monumental milestone: over the ensuing 30 years, her salary will increase, hopefully at least in line with inflation (let’s average that to 4%) so she will need to keep topping up her Emergency Fund such that it reaches $117,000 by the end of the 30 year period (I didn’t increase her tax rate to 35% … I guess I should have).

Assuming that her CD’s keep pace with inflation – and, she doesn’t need to draw down on the fund at all during the 30 year period – she will have $247,000 at the end of the 30 year period.

Before you sing Ode to Joy on this, remember that the CD’s are just keeping up with inflation, so the $247,000 is ‘worth’ no more and no less than the money that Meg actually put away … there is NO investment here at all.

Now, CD’s actually bounce around between 3.5% (actually for a bank deposit with WaMu) and 5.5% in the current market (and, who knows what they will average over the next 30 years?), so Meg could technically get a point to a point-and-a-half above inflation, but we are only talking $90,000 ‘gain’ over 30 years, if she gets the max.

Put the 6 month’s cash into an Index Fund and let it sit

OK, now that we have the cash ‘baseline’ set, let’s see what happens if we ‘amp up’ the savings rate a little by putting our Emergency Fund into an Index Fund instead:

Assuming the 30 year ‘guaranteed’ return for the ‘large cap’ stock market of 8%, Meg will ‘gain’ $335,000, after her inflation adjusted deposits are factored out … or, nearly a quarter of a million more than the $90k gain that she made by putting her money into pretty much the highest-performing major bank CD’s out there!

So, that was the premise of the original post: is the ‘peace of mind’ of having 6 month’s cash put aside for emergencies ‘worth’ $250,000 to you … put another way, would you pay a $8,333 a year (that’s $250,000 divided by 30) to ‘insure’ yourself against an emergency – on top of the insurances that you already do pay?!

Now, the stock market has actually averaged 12% over all but two 30 year periods in 75 years of history so what would ANOTHER $900,000 do to your decision-making process?!

That’s why you find another way … any other way … to dealing with an emergency rather than wasting the earning power of 6 month’s salary!

Put 6 month’s cash into an Index Fund, sell at a 20% ‘loss’ to buy property

Now, so here’s where it gets tricky: would you sell down your stock holdings, at a potential 20% ‘loss’ to move to another form of investment?

Basically what we are saying is this: you don’t know when an emergency will crop up, so while a CD will at least keep it’s value – year in, year out – an Index Fund may return more now, but at some stage (Murphy’s Law says in EXACTLY the year that you need the money for some emergency!?) the stock market will drop 10% or even 20%.

OK, let’s see …

Let’s assume that we have been rocking along nicely, still working on our 8% returns then at Year 10, this opportunity comes up just as the market tanks to the tune of 20% … what would you do?

Well, firstly, we are going to assume that the market eventually recovers and we get back to our long-term 30 year average of 8% for the Index Fund (after all, there have been NO 30 year periods when this hasn’t occurred, hence my suggestion to use 8% rather than the oft-quoted long term ‘average’ of 12% for the market … this higher ‘average return’ just isn’t guaranteed). So, we are still talking $250,000.

But, if we divert our funds to the real-estate option after 10 years (and, let’s assume that we use all of it as a deposit after taking that one-off 20% ‘hit’), we would have a $1.2 Million net gain by suffering the loss and acquiring the property (assuming that we find one that averages only a 6% capital gain, plus some rental income).

Why the huge advantage to real estate?

It is the only leveraged investment that we have considered (for example, try running a margin loan on your Index Fund and see what that can do).

Also, keep in mind that we don’t stop ‘topping up’ our emergency fund after the 10 year mark when we bought the real-estate, we simply keep putting our salary increases aside after year 10, so we could afford another, smaller, property (say, a $350k condo) at year 20 that would boost the 30 year returns markedly, again.

But, if it’s now in the real-estate, how do we handle an emergency? Simple: with a HELOC or refinance or sell the investment if a real emergency arises and the bank calls your HELOC in.

And, if you think that’s all-too-risky, then keep your money in the Index Fund and forget about the real-estate idea …

Here’s what Meg would do:

I would never have counted on such generosity and would have still sold my funds for this RE investment.

So would I, Meg, so would I … now, what about the rest of you?

Just make a move!

I wrote a piece about the 80/20 rule: how 80% of the people do nothing. I then broke the remaining 20% who do ‘something’ into two sub-groups:

– The 19% who save, pay down debt, etc.

– The 1% who will strive for – and perhaps reach – the top of the financial totem-pole.

And, I believe that the difference between all of these groups boils down to one thing: propensity to take action.

Josh‘s question sums it up quite nicely:

I guess you don’t want to be one of those people who contract “paralysis by analysis”. I’m thinking the key here is to just make a move, even though it may not be most perfect move?

Most people fail because they either take too much action or not enough!

Too much action can be a problem, for example, when you chase the market and switch investments a lot; as the Dalbar study found:

During the greatest bull market of all time from 1984 to December 2002 the study came up with an annualized return of 2.57% [for market timers, who move in/out of investments chasing better returns] compared to 12.22% for those who bought and held an S&P500 index fund.

But, how much did those who took NO action make?

0%

Clearly, taking some action is preferable to none … but, what of Josh’s second point: taking action even if “it may not be most perfect move”?

Life rarely presents us with a Final Choice Option …

…. when we take an action, we are usually free to take another! If you make a mistake, back-out as best you can and try something else.

I think of life in terms of a branching structure: at many stages – every day, hour, minute – we are standing at some sort of fork in the road and we have to take the left branch or the right. Somehow, we find a way to choose one:

a) If it seems to carry us to where we want to go. Fine. We stick with it (at least for a while).

b) If it seems to carry us away from where we want to go, we simply wait for the next branching opportunity and try something different.

For example, if an investment works we (should) stick with it. If not, we can always exit for a (hopefully) small’ish loss and try another … if we don’t the loss might increase and take us to zero (how about Enron?).

Of course, this is where it helps to have an overall destination in mind; it helps us understand what does represent the ‘right direction’ for each of us: sometimes, more than one branch appears to be sensible.

But, if you have a clear idea of your Life’s Purpose, all of a sudden only one of the branches may start to make more sense than another.

This helps to explain: where your Life’s Purpose goes, your finances will eventually and surely follow … either by direct route, or meandering, you will eventually find the road to what you deem to be success.

Why bother? Ric Edelman says that you already have it all …

I while ago I wrote a post gauging my own performance against the “Ric Edelman Secrets” …

I’ll leave you to go back and read the post and its comments as I think that they serve to show some of the differences between financial advice for the masses and the types of things that people who want extraordinary levels of wealth (if you’re reading this, that’s probably you!) need to consider.

In case you haven’t yet come across him or his books, Ric Edelman runs one of the country’s largest independent Financial Planning firms, so his firm has interviewed thousands of people looking for financial advice.

Ric says that when he (or one of his staff) asks the question of a new client “what are your financial goals?” the most common answers – by far – in this descending order of importance, are:

1. To buy a house

2. To save for (their kids’) college

3. To save for retirement

Now, here’s where I agree totally with Ric: these are not financial goals … they are inevitable outcomes!

Loosely paraphrasing Ric, here’s why:

1. Your house – you probably already have a house (most people do), and if you don’t, you won’t have to be prodded very much to go out and buy one – look at the sub-prime crisis to see how easy it can be to buy a house!

2. Your childrens’ college – if your children want to go to college, they will … one way or another, they will come up with the money. Sure you can improve on the situation by providing the funds to help them get into the college of their choice, but it’s a qualitative goal, not a ‘make or break’ in most cases.

3. Your retirement – you will retire … one day! Maybe not at the time, and in the manner that you would like to – but, you will retire (or die trying). It’s as simple as that!

So, why bother doing any financial planning when you already have – or will have – it all?!

Simple: it’s because these people haven’t yet developed a sense of their Life’s Purpose … to me that is the only goal worth aiming for … but, we have already discussed that subject, at length.

To each their own …

You’ve heard about the so-called Debt Free Revolution?

Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey are the most famous proponents of the pay-down-all-debt approach to personal finance.

But, just because something is called a ‘revolution’ doesn’t necessarily make it right!

… I’m sure that plenty of good French aristocrats also lost their heads during the French Revolution!

But, Money Monk was just voicing the view that’s it’s OK for debt-averse people, or those who know nothing about investing, to pay off their mortgages early when he said:

To each their own. In my parents case it was wise for them to pay off their mortgage because they have no knowledge of stocks and investments.

In my case it maybe be wise not to pay off my mortgage. Some people just like the simple no risk life. Younger people tend to take more risk because time is on their side.

Unless more people are educated about the market, many will go the debt free route because it take no risk

Firstly, if your parents were born in the US, MoneyMonk, they didn’t want a mortgage because they (or their parents) saw how the banks pulled mortgages to try and fund the run against their cash deposits during the Great Depression.

Their view was simple: “if I don’t have a mortgage, then the Bank can’t take my house away”.

But, this can’t happen any more. The bank can’t take your house away if you continue to make payments on time …

Secondly, having no knowledge of “stocks and investments” is no excuse: you can get that knowledge … even if it was a valid ‘excuse’ for your parents, it certainly isn’t the case today. Blogs such as your and mine are just one example about the sources of information out there today …

But, I agree: if time is running out, and you have less than 10 years left to retirement, then it’s probably too late – and too risky – to change course. The volatility of just about any investment over a time frame of a decade or less makes them simply too risky to bet your financial future on.

But, if you do have time on your side, then the risk is totally on the side of NOT investing. Because not investing guarantees a poor financial outcome!

And, if any of my readers think that getting a 6.5% – 8.5% after-tax return is ‘investing’ then they should be reading Pensioners’ Weakly instead of this blog 🙂

How to get that web-site up and going?

Jonathan (a.ka. ‘Rocko’) is an aspiring entrepreneur with a great idea for a web-based business in the education sector: it’s a concept that he believes very strongly in.

Like many of us with ideas that can and should be implemented via the Internet, the technical aspects can be a real stumbling block – I mean, if you’re not a tech-head yourself, how do you get the damn thing developed without a budget?

That’s exactly the question that Rocko e-mailed to me earlier this month:

My question is about taking the necessary steps to get your website’s more technical aspects completed when you have no capitol to work with – how do you find an interested “angel”?

Well, I can tell you this …

I have been working on a web-based concept for a while now, and wrestled with the same problem. I obtained some estimates to have the site developed professionally and found numbers between $50,000 and $250,000 to do ‘properly’.

The problem is this:

You may be able to fund – or find partners to fund – such development, but I don’t recommend it for the following reasons:

1. By the time you develop it, your requirements / specifications for the project will have changed 50 or 60 times … the chances are that lots of small “how about we add this? and “how about we change this” will add up to a net 40% to 60% change in the way you originally envisioned the site

2. You will launch a Beta trial of your site (you’d better!) and will find a flood of user requests for changes: errors, omissions, and simple functional additions/changes that you could not have foreseen.

3. Your site will require plenty of maintenance – and, will probably need to be fully rewritten two or three times to cope with the architectural stresses of a hugely (we hope!) expanding user-base.

All of this adds up to one thing: super profits for the outsourced developers … they have you by the [BLEEP] and both you and they know it!

Think about when you last rehabbed or built a house: the contractor provided a great estimate for the work and you selected them … then they ‘found’ hidden problems that required supplementary invoices. It’s common wisdom that you should expect to pay 20% more than estimated for this kind of work …

… it’s worse in IT … much worse!

Realizing the above, I did the only sensible thing when we needed to rewrite our operating software for one of my businesses way back in 2000 (to cope with the Y2K ‘bug’ … remember that?): I hired an inhouse team.

I never regretted that decision … it turned out to be the ONLY cost-effective way that we could have operated.

But, for your little start-up, Rocko, how will you be able to afford an in-house team?

You will need three IT people: a back-end database designer/programmer; a user-interface programmer; and, a web-designer. Good people … and, you will need the best … will set you back $120K a year or more. Each!

So, how did I solve this problem for my start-up?

Simple, I found my team of three and offered them 50% of the concept to write, maintain, manage the site …

A great question for the few …

Today, I have a treat for you …

… it will save you from going broke when you are on the cusp of success, so print this off and keep it somewhere safe!

It came about because of a great question from somebody who is (or should be) gearing up to move from Making Money 201 (increasing your income) to Making Money 301 (maintaining your wealth) …

… it comes from Donovan who asked this question by way of a comment on this post – appropriately about the ‘myth of income’:

My questions is, if my income is roughly $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 a year and I have no debt other than two small car loans. How much house can I afford?

I told Donovan “super-high-income can be a curse – not the blessing that the rest of the world imagines it to be”.

Now, tell me in your heart of hearts – if you are not already on a super-high income ($500k++) can you imagine what the problem/s might be?

Sure you can: too many girl/boy friends; too many cars and houses; cirrhosis of the liver 😉

On the serious side, these ‘excesses’ point to the real issue: living beyond our means is an even bigger problem for those on super-high-incomes than for those on ordinary incomes … really.

Here’s why …

You may be saving $200,000 (pre-tax) of your, say, $1,000,000 gross annual income … that’s 20% – a respectable percentage and huge dollar amount in anybody’s language.

But, that’s not the problem … it’s the $400k that you spend (after you pay Uncle Sam his ‘dues’) that is …

… the problem is this:

How ‘well off’ will you be when the income stops as it surely will (one day)?

If you don’t believe that this could be a problem: recall MC Hammer.

If not MC (who went from multi-millionaire to broke), then how about Elton John (nearly … he recovered financially) and many other sports stars who fell out of contract (or retired) or celebrities who time/circumstance took from A-List to C-List to …

Or how about the 4 out of 5 major lottery winners who are financially worse off 5 years after winning the lottery?

Here is the problem in a nutshell: living off your ENTIRE current income when it is likely (or even just possible) that it may not continue for ever.

If you are lucky enough to dramatically increase your income (and, if you follow my Making Money 201 strategies, you surely will), here is how you need to start thinking:

Income of any amount – and the more your earn, the more appropriate is what I am about to tell you – is the ‘fuel’ that builds your Investment Net Worth

… your Investment Net Worth is like a (one day huge … if you follow the 7million7year strategy) battery that you are trickle-charging or fast-charging with your income.

The amount available to charge your battery is purely based upon what you DON’T spend from that income today.

For example, when I was earning $1,000,000+ from my businesses, I still took home a miserly $50,000 a year (plus cars, business trips, and other legal ‘perks’) and diverted the balance to ‘fast-charging’ my ‘battery’.

My battery consisted mainly of income-producing real-estate investments (plus some stocks).

What you can happily spend should tend towards what your battery can generate when it is unplugged from the mains (i.e. your income) …

That way, when your income stops, your battery can kick in like an Uninterruptible Money Supply, and you never need to take a decrease in your standard of living (a very difficult and humbling experience that I urge you to avoid).

I like the battery analogy, but I prefer a ‘perpetual motion’ battery which cannot exist in physics; but, here’s how it can work financially:

– You build up the charge in your battery as fast as your Income LESS Spending can make it happen. Can you see how you have two levers here: 1. Increase your Income, and 2. Spend less … also, a third lever 3. Increase your battery’s efficiency (i.e. increase your investment returns?

– Once your battery is fully charged (this is entirely up to what YOU consider to be ‘fully charged’) you can cut over to battery power … hopefully, this comes at a time and with an amount that suits you … if so, congratulations, you are retired!

– Just remember, that when you are on battery power, you have two forces that are serving to drain the battery (your retirement living expenses, and inflation) and only one force serving to keep it topped up (investment returns), so you need a MUCH LARGER BATTERY than you may, at first think.

So, when figuring how much of your $1,000,000 – $2,000,000 yearly income to spend, Donovan, think about this:

– Do you ever want to spend LESS in your life than you do now? You are a fool or a saint if you think you can.

– Multiply the amount that you WANT to spend per year NOW by 20 (or 40 if you are as conservative as me), and that is how much you must have in your battery if you were to retire TODAY on your current income.

– Double your battery size for every 20 years between NOW and when you DO want to retire (to allow for the trickle drain of just 4% inflation).

This simple three step process answers a very important question for our Super-High-Income (indeed, ANY income friends) …

… if the battery is too large for you to every conceive getting, simply lower your current spending wants until you come up with a number (and, a timeframe) that does seem to work. The good news is that as you lower your current spending, you can divert more to charging your battery!

How has this worked out for me?

Very well indeed, but you might be surprised to hear that I COULD live off much more than I do, but I also like the concept of keeping some of my battery power in reserve against unforeseen circumstances …

… after all, if you were relying on just battery ‘power’ for the rest of your life, wouldn’t you want to at least keep some in reserve? 🙂

Avalanche or Snowball?

Many of our readers are carrying ‘bad’ debt and are looking at ways to get rid of it as quickly as possible (surprisingly, this is not always a good thing) ….

There are two competing methods:

1. Dave Ramsey’s Debt Snowball, and

2. Flexo’s Debt Avalanche.

Actually, neither invented nor ‘own’ their method, they are each just the most recent promoters of their respective method that I could find with a quick Google search.

Followers of Dave Ramsey tout his method as the best because it encourages the smaller debts to be freed up first, hence putting larger and larger amounts towards each succeeding (and larger) debt. The psychological ‘boost’ of the early quick wins (by paying off the small debts first) are said by Dave’s fans to help ride the bigger waves (of the bigger debts) that will then confront you.

Flexo counters with cold mathematical logic:

If you have a certain amount of money available to pay off a portion of your debt each month, even if that certain amount changes, there is a mathematically correct way of paying off that debt. You can call this approach the Debt Avalanche. It is similar to Dave Ramsey’s popular “debt snowball” method, with one small but important detail: With the Debt Avalanche you will pay off your debt faster and pay less total interest to banks and lenders.

I think Flexo is technically right: the people that will give up because they don’t see a ‘quick win’ are probably financially doomed, anyway.

But, I disagree with Flexo in that, for most people the difference in time and cost is probably marginal in the whole scheme of their lives and if it serves to solve their problem (and, for them, the other method won’t) then for me utility wins. But, only if the avalanche won’t work for that person (and, I can’t for the life of me see why it wouldn’t, but whom am I to speak for everybody?) …

However, as far as either method goes – and, this is particularly suited to the method of ordering the debts by interest rate as in the Avalanche method – I would add an important ‘tweak’ here:

I would draw a line where the debt is lower than the cost of a current mortgage and at that point seriously think if I really do want to pay off that low cost debt or would I rather apply the cash towards an income producing investment and allow that older debt to run it’s course.

Student loans are a perfect example of this:

Why pay off a 2% loan in order to then incur a 6% mortgage on a real-estate purchase (assuming that’s what you intend to do next); just put the cash that you were planning to apply to the student loan into the RE and take a lesser mortgage.

Refinance when the student loan falls due (or interest rates increase, as some can ratchet up over time) and use the refinanced cash to pay it off (check out the likely refinance expenses right up front, though, to make sure that this will be cost-effective).

Complicated? Sure … Mathematically effective? Absolutely!