Tag Archives: millionaire

Playing the Efficient Market Theorist for a fool …

Posted on by
13

I love it when a scientific study – that cost goodness-knows-how-much – produces a result that is, well, kind’a stating the obvious …

Take this paper as an example; it finds that Warren Buffett’s success with stocks is not due to luck or taking higher risks, rather – surprise, surprise (!) – it’s due to superior stock picking skills:

The stock portfolio of Berkshire Hathaway, comprising primarily of stocks of large-cap companies, has beaten the S&P 500 index in 20 out of 24 years for the time period 1980-2003. In addition, the average annual return of Berkshire Hathaway’s stock portfolio exceeds the average annual return of the S&P 500 by 12.24% over this time period.

We examined various potential explanations for Berkshire Hathaway’s investment performance. We first explored the explanation that Berkshire Hathaway’s performance may be due to pure luck. We find that while beating the market in 20 out of 24 years is possible due to luck at a 5% significance level, incorporating the magnitude by which Berkshire beats the market makes the “luck” explanation unlikely.

After employing sophisticated adjustments for risk, we find that Berkshire’s high returns can not be explained by high risk.

Ruling out the major alternate explanations to Berkshire’s investment performance leaves us with the potential explanation that Warren Buffett is an investor with superior stock-picking skills that allows him to identify undervalued securities and thus obtain risk-adjusted positive abnormal returns.

Well, d’ah …

So, let me tell you – and, I’ll accept a $1 Mill. federal government grant to write the obvious up as a paper, if you like – that Warren Buffett makes his money essentially in two ways:

As Businesses

Contrary to popular belief that Warren Buffett is a vulture who swoops in when there is carnage all around to pick up businesses at bargain prices, Warren actually patiently waits to buy sound businesses at fair prices.

These are usually private/family businesses that need to be sold for reasons other than the soundness of the business itself … for example, the largest family business in Australia was split up to avoid squabbling by the ‘next generation’ … succession is usually the major issue facing such private/family businesses. Warren did not buy this Aussie business, but you get my point …

Warren, to the best of my knowledge, rarely bargains on the price of a business and has even been known to overpay; for example, when the Sees family wanted $30 Million for the Sees Candy business, Warren nearly walked away, thinking it was worth only $25 Million …

… Warren is glad that he bought it anyway, as the business returned Warren’s $30 Million in only a few, short years and is worth over $1 billion today.

You see, a business grows and produces continuing cashflows – even if you never sell (and, Warren NEVER sells!), so the price you pay is secondary, IF the business produces outstanding returns. That’s why Warren says:

It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.

In Defiance

So, Warren Buffett wears two hats, with his first hat (surprisingly) being business owner … but, it’s his second hat as the World’s Greatest Stock Investor seems to be the most fascinating to most people.

Well, I’ll let you in on a ‘secret’ … there is no great secret here, at all: Warren simply makes a ton of money by proving that the so-called Efficient Market Theorists are fools … time and time again!

Given that luck and all the other explanations have been rigorously and scientifically ruled out, what the study has ‘proved’ – at great expense, I might add – is not that Warren Buffett is right …

… but, that Efficient Market Theory is wrong!

Now, THAT is a breakthrough of gargantuan proportions, and tomorrow, I’ll tell you how you can exploit it 😉

How not to be a dull boy …

Posted on by
2

When I worked I was dull and when I retired I became insufferable … it’s official!

But, there is a way out: it’s called the Work/Life Balance and we all want it, but none of us really have any idea how to get it 🙂

Which brings me back to a conversation I had with a friend of mine after showing him our new house a few nights ago (extensive renovations will be underway, soon):

My friend, a doctor – an internist, family doctor, or general practitioner as he would variously be called depending on which country you are in – confided that he originally wanted to become a surgeon.

But, he stopped his studies – after many years of trying, failing, then retrying to make the ‘cut’ when his wife suggested that he draw a pie chart of how he was spending his time.

Here’s his chart:

all-work1

Typical working student; most of his day taken up with work, then study with very little left for sleep and virtually no R&R (rest and recreation: that’s where ‘family’ comes in) …

… she then asked him to draw a similar chart of how he would LIKE his typical day to look, and this is what he drew:

no-play

It doesn’t take a genius – or a budding surgeon – to realize that what he really wanted was a BALANCED LIFE: work, sleep, family.

My friend almost immediately gave up his surgery aspirations with absolutely NO REGRETS and now runs a successful suburban practice that gives him a life where he can help people, his family, and himself in almost equal quantities.

This leads me to think: why do we live the first pie chart, if not to get to the second? Perhaps, money is not really the object, after all …

… or, maybe you need to live the first for a defined period (your Date) in order to achieve a preset amount (your Number) so that you can live the life you really need (your Life’s Purpose)?

Now I better go and take some of my own advice … 😉 [AJC: Really, I just added this sentence: I have to go for a walk to the letterbox with my wife … whoo hoo!]

A new way to look at your home …

Posted on by
11

There is a new way to look at your home, and if you do it, you will never make a financial misstep again – at least when it comes to the biggest personal purchase that you are ever likely to take …

… but, I warn you: your wife may not like it 😛

You see, we tend to describe our homes as an ‘investment’ but the reality is far different: we buy emotionally and we justify rationally.

The truth is: we [most of us] want a home … then we want a bigger one … always, just a little/lot more than we can actually afford. And, to be totally truthful … I not only succumb to this line of thinking myself, I actually encourage you to do the same!

I subscribe to the old-fashioned notion that you should buy your own home – even if it means breaking my rules to get into the home in the first place – as a way of ‘forced savings’ …

… but, once you are in your first home, I then want you to rationally examine the true current resale value of your home, and the equity that you have in it (i.e. what the home is curently worth against what you currently owe), at least ONCE EACH YEAR, to ensure:

(a) that you don’t upgrade until you can afford the payments, and

(b) that you put any excess equity to work for you.

But, these rules are only ‘proxies’ for what you should be doing, if you could be trusted to manage your money rationally, instead of emotionally …

… if you could be trusted to treat your home – at, least from a financial aspect – as a house:

You should charge yourself rent!

This is the only way to ‘prove’ that your house is an investment. It lets you know two things:

Am I living beyond my means?

To find out, simply ask yourself these two questions:

(a) How much rent could you get on your house if you rented it out? Ask a Realtor or two … scour the listings in your local paper … look it up on rent.com … do this properly!

(b) What rent can you afford to pay, according to the 25% Income Rule?

If (a) is more than (b) then you have a problem … you are living beyond your means: either increase your means (e.g. get a second job; charge your children board; etc.) or decrease your living (e.g move out; rent out a room; etc.).

Am I investing wisely?

This one is easy; if you charge yourself rent, you can see if your property is positive cashflow or negative cashflow …

You have some ‘advantages’:

– You have a great tenant

– Your tenant has a great landlord

– You get to tax deduct your mortgage

– There’s no tax to pay on the ‘rental income’ … it’s all in your head, remember? 😉

To find out if you really are investing wisely, simply ask yourself these two questions:

(a) How much return on my money (i.e. equity currently in the house) could you get if you sold the house and reinvested the equity elsewhere?

(b) What rent would you have to pay (remember that you want to take the lower of your current rent or what the 25% Income Rule allows) if you lived elsewhere?

If (a) is more than (b) then you have a problem … you are investing badly: either sell your house or see if pulling out some equity and investing helps.

If the answers don’t please you, and you are unwilling to make the necessary changes, then the 20% Equity Rule and 25% Income Rule are still there to stop you from getting into too much financial trouble … make sure you obey them! 🙂

Good deal or bad deal?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, let’s look at the deal a little:

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

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

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

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

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

Deal or no deal?

How fast is frugality?

Posted on by
6

save-v-invest

I love it when I read interesting posts on the personal finance blogs and other forums … take Mighty Bargain Hunter‘s view that frugality is the fastest way to a better bottom line:

It shouldn’t be the only way you’re improving your bottom line, but it does give results, fast.

For someone who already has their finances under good control, some money-saving activities are simply too little payback for too much time … [but] what about the people who aren’t as well off?  Maybe they’re making $40k or $50k, but have a lot less saved up than they probably should for their age.  This is the situation for which packing your lunch, buying generic, buying used, skipping Starbucks, and clipping coupons will help.

And it helps immediately.  The week you take lunch to work at $2 a day instead of hitting Subway at $5 a day, you’ve improved your bottom line by $15.  Boom.  Or brew your coffee in the morning instead of hitting Starbucks.  $10 per week.  Boom.  Instant gratification.

Building up income streams takes longer, especially the kind of income streams you want (passive ones) … higher income may be better in the long run, but that’s the long run.

Frugality is here and now.

Businesses have taken this view for a long time now … they call it cost-cutting 🙂

Usually a business that is spending its time cutting costs is a business that you should selling out of, not buying into …

… it’s current finances may begin to look great, but its future may be bloody awful (that’s why it’s busy cutting costs!).

On the other hand, a GREAT business invests in their future (sales and marketing, product development, R&D, production, etc.) while managing their costs.

So, let’s put it to the test: how fast is frugality?

Well, to find out, I put four scenarios into the Magic Excel Blender and here’s what it spat out:

Save: If you earned $100,000 a year and cut corners so that you could save 20% to stick in your mattress, at the end of 20 years, you’d have $400k stashed away.

Invest: If you only managed to save 10% a year and spent your time investing the proceeds wisely (@ 8% p.a.) you’d end up with $460k in (say) stocks.

Save + Invest: But, if you did the sensible thing and invested your savings instead of stashing it under your mattress (in other words, save 20% then invest it @ 8% … hardly rocket science), you’d end up with more than $920,000 after 20 years, and still have dividends each year to live off … a much better result for only a little extra work together with some belt-tightening.

MM101: However, if you did the really sensible thing, and built up your income (so that you can afford to reinvest the dividends), saved well (at least 20%, but only of your original level of income), and invested both the dividends and the savings wisely (@ 8% p.a.) after 20 years you’d have over $2.5 million.

Frugality may be quick (in that we can afford to pay a bill; pay down a pressing loan), but will never make us rich …

… that’s why we take a multi-faceted view to personal finance:

Making Money 101 – to ensure that our costs are under control and free up some cash to help us invest in MM201

Making Money 201 – to grow our income by investing what little cash we may have (to begin) wisely and maintaining sound MM101 ‘habits’ to ensure that we have ever-growing streams of investment income, keeping our growing personal ‘needs’ (read: expenses) in check, so that we can eventually reach our Number

Making Money 301 – to manage our Number (i.e. our nest-egg) so that it lasts as long as we do, while living the life that we have designed for ourselves, not the life that others have resigned us to.

The true cost of debt …

Posted on by
Reply

deal-case-yes

Have you cast your vote yet?

Deal or No Deal … YOU DECIDE

Click here to vote!

_______________________________

In my post about debt, I said that it is not always correct to simply pay down old debt … in this post, you will see that it’s rarely ever correct.

First, let’s look at Jeff’s comments, which summarize the traditional view that it’s all about interest rate comparisons:

My opinion is to still compare your debt interest to prevailing debt rates (is it cheap money compared to what else is available?), how does inflation affect the rate (cheaper future dollars point again) and can I out perform the debt rates with the investment opportunity that is competing for this money.

Without the tax advantage, I’m more inclined to pay off the debt, i.e. lower tolerance for high debt interest.

I haven’t done any math on it…yet, but my gut feel is that 6% or higher on the debt and I’d be giving serious thought to paying off the loans.

This may be true, Jeff, if all else is equal …

… but in the ‘real world’ of investing, you will find that all else is rarely equal!

You see, I don’t look at interest rate and cost anywhere near as much as I look at utility – a concept that I introduced in this post: if I am serious about investing, I am struggling to find a scenario where putting my money INTO reducing leverage (by paying down existing loans) returns more than taking on new ‘good’ debt …

…. or, leaving old ‘bad’ debt in place, as long as it is cheap’ish and, much more importantly, available!

I’m sure that our resident real-estate experts (e.g. Shafer Financial) could point you to 1,000 examples where it is still viable to maintain debt of 8% – 15%+ as long as you could find cash-flow positive real-estate that appreciates at not much more than inflation.

It doesn’t even need to be real-estate, but it does depend on what you are prepared to invest into; e.g. assuming Michael Masterson’s numbers:

  • CD’s return 4%, so I would pay down the 6%+ debt
  • Index Funds return 8%, therefore, I would be inclined to keep the debt if it were very close to 6%; anything above and we would have a more difficult decision
  • Individual Stocks return 15%; I would buy the stocks (and, probably margin borrow into them as well), but that’s just me … Warren Buffett would say ‘never borrow to buy stocks’, so you have a ‘philosophical’ decision to make
  • Real-estate (together with stocks) returns 30%; @ 6% I would keep the loan (for as long as possible!) and buy the real-estate
  • Businesses return 50%+, so I would keep the loan in place (again) and use the ‘repayment money’ to help start up

Besides the obvious tax implications (e.g. CD’s and Index Funds – depending upon whether they are inside or outside a 401k – could become ‘line ball’ with paying off the 6%+ debt (IF it were pretty close to the 6% mark) …

BUT, you have highlighted a more important flaw in my argument: this table only looks at the use of the money; what if I could get a cheaper source of funds by paying down the old debt then acquiring new?

Great argument, in theory, but let’s see how it stacks up in the ‘real world’ … the simple question is: can we refinance or otherwise acquire cheap, new debt (thus allowing us to pay down the expensive, old debt) as Jeff suggests?

Let’s see:

CD’s: I don’t see any easy way to finance except with personal loans, credit cards, a refi or HELOC over our home, so I would say let the debt ride. But, the list above suggests that this would a recipe for losing money, anyway, because of the low returns.

Index Funds: possible to borrow on margin (i.e. finance) through a brokerage account (but, not in your 401k) but only to a max. of approx. 50% so you would still need to come up with the other 50% elsewhere.

Individual Stocks: same as with Index Funds (e.g. I am 100% financed in the US market through a combination of HELOC and margin loans).

Real-Estate: usually able to refinance, so I would agree with you to “compare your debt interest to prevailing debt rates”; other than right now, 6% is extraordinarily low historically … 8% – 10% would be closer to my refinance decision-point.

Small Businesses: very hard to finance except with personal loans and credit cards, so I would say let the debt ride if you were highly enthused and confident of success.

In other words, finance is simply not readily available on most investment choices available to us.

So, the questions that you need to answer – probably in this order, Jeff – are these:

1. Do I want to get rich(er) quick(er)?

2. If so, am I prepared to increase – or, at least maintain – leverage by borrowing for investments?

3. If so, am I prepared to make the mental leap of moving to the concept of ‘pools of debt’ and ‘pools of equity’ by not actually having the debt entirely on the asset that I am acquiring?

And, more importantly:

4. Is new debt available to make the investment/purchase (if so, is it cheaper than my current debt)?

5. Does the investment/asset that I am considering acquiring return more than my current (or new) debt?

If you don’t get past Question 1. then paying down debt is the only Making Money 101 strategy that you need to be concerned with … otherwise, I don’t really see this going half-way 😉

A little perspective …

Posted on by
Reply

picture-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

How much does it take to feel wealthy?

Posted on by
10

The answer is “about double” 🙂

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

… let me explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, what you need to do is:

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

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

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