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!

Alchemy works!

Bill is a reader from Malaysia; he read my post on diversification and sent me the following e-mail:

I came across this article which is from Australia

http://www.propertyupdate.com.au/articles/242/1/A-strategy-most-people-use-to-avoid-wealth/Page1.html

The gist of this article really go in line with your premise of focus vs diversification.

Having said that, the author also espouses that one needs to focus oneself in getting the first one million then only talk about diversifying in other wealth building strategies. Similarly, in my country, we always believe that as long as having earned the first bucket of golds, more buckets would come.

I believe that the above might be a generalised notion, may I ask, in your scenario, did you make the adequate money from your finance company first, then only embarked on the other wealth building activities?

Firstly, to answer Bill’s excellent question: no, I didn’t wait for my finance company to make ‘adequate money’ before venturing into real-estate; these were concurrent strategies … I used the cashflow from my business to help finance the real-estate (i.e. building up cash for a deposit; then using business profits to help cover the mortgage and other costs of holding the real-estate where the rent was insufficient).

But, this is not a question of diversification …

… this is a question of using ACTIVE income to fund PASSIVE investments. This is ALWAYS a good idea!

It is like alchemy: turning a serviceable but somewhat worthless substance into something exceedingly valuable: alchemists believed that they could come up with a ‘formula’ to turn lead into gold … in the current market, wouldn’t that be wonderful?!

Similarly, ‘financial alchemy’ seeks to turn serviceable but somewhat worthless income from your job or business – ‘worthless’ because you can suddenly lose your job/business – into something far more enduring: passive assets (e.g. stocks; bonds; real-estate; gold; etc.).

This is not the same as diversifying … diversifying would be then buying more than one class of passive asset in an attempt to reduce risk. See the difference?

And, as the Australian article correctly points out: wealthy people got that way by concentrating on the one thing that they do best …

Why the 'wrong' people are rich!

Yesterday’s post on the use of HELOC’s v. ‘standard’ mortgages brought up the concept of using the right tool for the right job.

Since this is a vital concept, I want to make one additional point, and I’ll do it in response to a comment that Moom left me on that original post:

Aren’t HELOC rates above 1st mortgage interest rates? Or if you have no first mortgage you can get a lower rate? Diane: At AJC’s level mortgage interest on owner occupied property is not tax deductible I think, while interest on investment loan is. Which might explain the HELOC strategy?

Moom is partially correct: at my level, tax detectability of the home loan portion is limited.

Having said that, since I am trading I may be able to offset the entire interest cost against my gains on the stocks anyway (a question for my accountant, I guess).

But, to be honest, I very rarely consider tax consequences or even cost differentials when making these kinds of decisions (unless major).

Read that again, because it goes against the concept of ‘millionaire as financial genius’ which is a mythical image that most of us erroneously carry.

Not only that, it serves to explain why the wrong people are rich!

So, I’ll repeat:

I very rarely consider tax consequences or even cost differentials when making these kinds of decisions (unless major).

This doesn’t make sense, does it? Because:

‘Rich people’ know every dollar that they have coming in and out, right?

‘Rich people’ ‘spreadsheet’ every decision that they make, right?

‘Rich people’ know the tax consequences of every decision that they make, right?

‘Rich people’ know ALL the alternatives – and, the costs thereof – and choose the lowest cost alternative every time, right?

‘Rich people’ are the smartest, most financially astute people around, right?

Wrong!

Some rich people know these things, but in my experience most don’t (at least not to the level that you might expect) …

… in fact, most rich people that I know are not the most financially astute people around. They just have the most financially astute people around them.

The financially astute people are in the supporting roles! They are the B-movie stars or ‘best supporting’ actors, not the guy carrying the ‘best actor’ Oscar …

Why?

Because ‘rich guys’ became rich by ACTING when more financially astute people would still be ANALYZING …

Because ‘rich guys’ became rich by focusing on INCOME when more astute people would still be focusing on EXPENSES.

For example, I create INCOME … I pay advisers to help me minimize EXPENSES:

– I pay an accountant to advise me on tax consequences.

– I work with a private banker to help me with finance products and interest rates.

– I work with a broker (rarely) if I need help to put together a new hedging strategy.

But, it is I who creates the new business concept; the new investment strategy; and, who makes the next real-estate purchase …

… and, it is the huge increase in INCOME that these decisions can make (and, have made) that have been far more important to the increase in my personal net worth than any cost/tax-based ‘adjustment’ that my accountant, banker, or broker could have made.

So, when Moom asks about interest rate differentials, and tax advantages, I have to say that I generally don’t even think of these – at first …

… I look primarily at UTILITY.

Which product do I think will best help me achieve the increase in INCOME that I am looking for?

9 out of 10 times I will go with that approach, even if my experience points in the direction that it will cost a little more in interest or may be slightly less tax-advantaged.

If I am not sure, or it seems like it may not be a close call, then a quick phone call to one of my panel of advisers will usually do the trick.

So, why did I choose the HELOC even though it costs a little more in interest (and, possibly more in tax, as well)?

Because, at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do. Simple!

Different horses for different courses …

I posted recently on using a HELOC as part of your emergency fund strategy and Diane noticed that I had mentioned my own use of a HELOC in an older post about my own home purchases.

Diane said:

I’m confused. You pay cash for the houses, then take a HELOC? If memory serves me, you never hold more than 20% of the house value, AND mortgages interest rates are usually lower than HELOC’s interest rates AND mortgage interest is also tax-deductible (at least to me)whereas the HELOCs may not be (seem not to be by what I’ve read). What am I getting wrong here? (and thanks for tackling this subject!)

This is a great question because it highlights how the rules of money ‘flip flop’ when you move to the next stage of wealth: from Making Money 101 to Making Money 201, then Making Money 201 to Making Money 301.

And, I have two quick comments to make on these transitions that I will expand on in future posts:

1. These are not necessarily hard/sudden transitions e.g. while you are still getting your financial house in order (Making Money 101) you can also start to increase your income (Making Money 201); before you fully retire, you may also be working on migrating your investments to help you preserve your wealth (Making Money 301).

2. The rules of money DO change during these transitions, which serves to explain why many people who do well with Making Money 101 falter at Making Money 201 (for example, they are unable to open themselves up to the idea of increasing debt after they just finished working so hard at eliminating their ‘old’ debt).

And, the HELOC is a great example of both …

In the post on Emergency Funds, I floated the idea of not taking a guaranteed loss (by parking 6 months cash in a CD, as most ‘experts’ recommend) to forestall a potential disaster. I suggested building up reserves for known/expected costs, and using a combination of insurance and HELOC’s for the true ‘unexpected’ emergencies.

This is a great Making Money 101 and Making Money 201 strategy as it provides more capital for investment, in the likely event that there will be NO serious emergency … of course, if you do have an emergency you may have a more difficult recovery if the cash isn’t already conveniently sitting in the bank.

Your choice, entirely.

But, as a Making Money 301 strategy? Well, I have enough cash on hand at all times to cover any emergency … or, opportunity. I don’t need a HELOC for that … and, when you retire, neither should you.

Why?

The rules ‘flip flop’: you no longer have the time to recover from an emergency (your investments by now are mostly set for passive/fixed income … not growth), but you also don’t need to be investing 100% of what you have available in order to live.

When calculating your Number, you ‘anticipated’ emergencies and have arranged your finances and investments to that you have excess cash on hand at all times.

So, why do I have a HELOC?

Well, this comes to the second post that I mentioned:

When you are still Making Money (101 or 201) you want at least 75% of your Net Worth in investments at all times … and, this still holds true when you are retired and concentrating on preserving your wealth (301) … just in different investments.

So the 20% Rule ensures that you don’t have more than 20% of your Net Worth invested in your own home at any point in time.

This means that if you want to buy a house that costs more than 20% of your Net Worth (as it will for most in Making Money 101 and 201) you will need to borrow … for this, I suggest locking in a fixed-rate mortgage for as long as the bank will give it to you.

But, it also means that your house may cost less than 20% of your Net Worth … think about it: if your Net Worth was $7 Million, you could spend $1.4 million cash on a house.

If you wanted to borrow, say, another lazy million from the bank, then you could spend $2.4 million on a house (provided that you can cover the mortgage payments).

It all depends on your lifestyle needs.

So, my current house fit within the 20% Rule for me, cash paid. So, no mortgage required …

But, as I mentioned in that post, I hate seeing so much ‘dead money’ tied up in a house … so why not do something with it?

Hence the HELOC of approx. 50% of the value of the house: I use it to invest in stocks; if the market is travelling badly, I can cash out these stocks, pay down the HELOC and have little to no costs. Tax is only a small issue at these levels … I am well over the IRS maximum no matter which way I go.

But, when the market appears ‘right’ again, I can immediately draw down the HELOC and invest. For this specific purpose, the flexibility of a HELOC far outweighs the interest-cost advantage of a standard mortgage.

Of course, a better use for the ‘spare equity’ in my house might be another real-estate investment; since these are (for me) invariably ‘buy/hold’ a HELOC is poor for that purpose and I will then switch out of it.

Different horses for different courses … thanks, Diane!

The lament of the middle-class millionaire ….

I must confess that I understand EXACTLY what this ‘poor woman’ is saying …

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=768292103

Ryan (who is one of the Final 15 in my 7 Millionaires … In Training! ‘grand experiment’) sent the link to me saying:

About 6 months ago I did a similar exercise to determine how much I would need to “retire” and live the kind of life I wanted to (travel, philanthropy, golf, bigger house,activities, etc.). Although it seemed like a stretch to even write down, I settled on $10 million in 10 years. After watching a show on cnbc, in particular this clip, http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=768292103 , I think it’s time to revise my estimate!!! And to think that a couple of years ago I thought if you had a million dollars you could do anything you wanted.

The exercise that Ryan is referring to is the culmination of a series of posts on http://7m7y.com designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to help you find your Number.

This video – I believe – helps explain why I think that your Number should be couched in terms of required living expenses rather than some nebulous lump sum (such as $1 million; $5 million; $10 million; etc.) … although I also show you how to calculate the ‘lump sum’ that you will need.

But, Ryan doesn’t need more than $10 Million (a.k.a. $500,000 per year … indexed for inflation) to live a life that simply involves “travel, philanthropy, golf, bigger house,activities, etc.”; he just needs to realize that on $500k per year:

1. He will not be able to afford ownership (fractional or full) of multiple houses, jets, yachts and the like (although one used Ferrari isn’t out of the question), and

2. He will NOT be rich … rather ‘comfortably off’ – at least, according to Felix Dennis the rather quirky (and exceedingly rich) British/American magazine publisher.

… it’s a tough life 😉

More on the debt-free fallacy …

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 post that (I hope!) exploded the popular view peddled by the Ramsey/Orman/Frugal crowd: that you should pay down all debt, including your home loan. You will need to read that post to see why it’s such a bad idea.

As expected, the post generated a lot of reader comment, much centered on the theme that owning your own home outright is (a) better than doing nothing (true, but eating pizza every day is also – marginally – better than eating nothing) and (b) a great emotional ‘cushion’.

Money Monk summarized it perhaps most succinctly:

I think it all depends on a person risk tolerance. Some people just love the security of a paid for home. I just think either way is OK. I just would not suggest someone scraping by just to pay off their mortgage. Forcing themselves to live frugally

Either way is definitely not OK:

Sure, either way is better than NO way …

…. but, one way is clearly better than the other way!

The ‘catch 22′ here is that the very thing that these people THINK will make them secure (e.g. paying off their home loan) actually makes them much less so, in the long-term.

That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t make emotionally-self-satisfying decisions … for example, owning your own home is not always a smart FINANCIAL decision, yet it’s one that I actively encourage people to make for exactly the EMOTIONAL reasons that Money Monk (and others) stated:

http://7million7years.com/2008/01/28/should-you-rent-or-buy/

But, that does NOT mean that you should own the property outright …

… there is far more REAL SECURITY in knowing that you will retire with enough to live off than there is in the FALSE SECURITY of having ‘just’ $1 Mill net worth in, say, 20 years (usually wrapped up in your home ownership):

http://7million7years.com/2008/02/28/is-your-home-an-asset-a-simple-question-with-a-not-so-simple-answer/

But, I’m not out to change EVERYBODY’s view … only SOME people’s: those who want to become Rich(er) Quick(er) ;)

The way wealth is built …

Damn, I had just finally trashed (and, I mean that in the nicest possible way) the Tycoon Report article that I had excerpted yesterday and the say before … after all, there is such a concept as “too much of a good thing” …

But, I wanted to cover the basics of making money today – hence, my digging the Tycoon Report Article out of my trash (a third time!) because the author, Jason Jovine, just happened to have summarized it really nicely in that same article:

Let’s start off today with a very short, simple lesson on the basics of money.  The way wealth is built is based on just a few things …

1.  How much you make (your income).

2.  What your expenses are.

3.  How you invest your money.

(I am of course not factoring in any inheritance or gifts that you may receive; they are just icing on the cake.)

The key here is to focus on the words “the way wealth is built” … here, we are talking about making money.

And, to make lots of money, if boils down to a ‘simple’ formula:

fn{a($Income – $Expenses)} x fn{b(%Returns – %Expenses)}

Now, I haven’t done maths in 20+ years, so the formula (mathematically speaking) is cr*p, but the principle is this:

Your wealth is some function of how much you earn (less what you spend each year living, etc.) together with some function of how and how much you invest (less any expenses involved in ‘investing’).

This means that there is more than one way to skin the ‘get rich’ cat; for example:

1. You can earn a sh*tload every year on your job (say, $250k p.a.), save a huge % of it (say 35% pre-tax), and invest in a bunch of off-the shelf products (e.g. mutual funds, ETF’s, etc.), taking into account that you will only get circa-market returns (stats say, usually less) and carry some costs (averages 1% – 2% of funds under management, hopefully all tax advantaged at least until withdrawal).

2. You can earn an average salary every year (say $50k p.a.), save a reasonable proportion of it (say 15%, preferably pre-tax) and amp up the returns on your investments (carrying some additional risk in order to do so) … I say ‘some function’ because you can (and should, IF getting rich on a small salary is your prime concern) borrow as much money as you believe that you can handle to increase the upside (of course, you again increase your risk).

3. You can increase your income (e.g. start a full or part-time business, with all the attendant risks) and then invest per 1. or you can amp it up (again) and invest per 2.

There are many combinations, hence strategies, available – obviously increasing your income and increasing investment returns greatly increases your chances of getting rich(er) quick(er)! As does lowering both your personal and investment expenses.

Now, the article’s finally toast!

Play the match game …

Here’s an ‘investing match game’ for you to try … simply match the active investment actions in Column A with the investment vehicle of choice in Column B (you must use each word in Column A once, and once only … you may use any word/s in Column B as often as you like):

Investment Actions Investment Choice
Rehab’ing / Flipping   Real-Estate
     
Mortgaging / Leveraging   Motor Vehicle
     
No Money Down   Business Assets

Now, is this a trick question? If you’re honest, you probably answered:

Investment Actions Investment Choice
Rehab’ing / Flipping   Real-Estate
     
Mortgaging / Leveraging   Real-Estate
     
No Money Down   Real-Estate

… after all, these are all ways to make money with real-estate; so did you pass the little test?

Good, because here is how they might work:

1. Rehab’ing, then flipping (quickly on-selling) real-estate

You can purchase a run-down property in a good location (usually a small house, condo, duplex, triplex or perhaps a run-down apartment complex), provide some of your own labor (or try and find a general contractor willing to work cheap) to fix up the kitchen and bathroom/s, apply a little paint and some new carpet, and … voila … you get to re-list the property and resell it for a price that covers your purchase price + rehab + profit (both yours and the general contractor). At least that how it used to be done – and, will again, sooner or later. Rehab’ing and flipping can be a useful way to generate a small lump of cash (also known as ‘chunking‘).

2. Mortgaging real-estate

You can purchase some real-estate, perhaps putting in a deposit of 10% – 20% and then using the bank’s money to pay for the balance. You can either live in the property or rent it out to help cover the cost of the mortgage (which you should usually fix so that you can be certain of your future costs). Since the mortgage payments do NOT rise with inflation (if you were smart enough to fix them), but rents do … over the long run you will earn an income and an eventual capital gain as the property increases in value. Buying and holding is a simple strategy for long-term wealth.

3. No Money Down

This is where you find a creative way to avoid paying a deposit (perhaps you don’t have the cash?) and then work with one of the other two strategies. There are people who swear by this method and others who say that there is no ethical way to use this strategy in a repeatable fashion. In either case, you use tools, like assuming an existing loan, and/or seller carry-back financing and/or finding a partner to avoid the necessity for fronting the 20% deposit yourself.

Of course, this little primer on real-estate was just a little ruse to stop you from peeking ahead

… you see, even though I have also invested in real-estate in many different ways, here’s how I would match up those columns a little differently, based upon some things that I have actually done over the years:

Investment Actions Investment Choice
Rehab’ing / Flipping   Motor Vehicle
     
Mortgaging Leveraging   Business Assets
     
No Money Down   Business Assets

i) Rehab’ing, then flipping a motor vehicle

Just out of college, I landed a high-flying job in the hot IT sector (yes, we had computers in the 80’s … just bigger) … when all of my friends were buying their first new car, I was selling mine, to buy …

… a 10 year old Porsche 911 (the particularly ‘hot’ S-model) for just $13,000 (she was a beauty, but more exhaust fumes ended up inside the car than outside … helps to explain the loss of a few memory cells).

The trouble is that she was that horrible bright/lime green that the German engineers thought was oh so appealing … yuk. I hired a compressor and bought some paint and materials … and, a friend who (said that he) had some experience spray painting, helped me to strip and sand the car’s exterior to bare metal then we spray painted it (in his backyard garage) a beautiful red … acrylic. We used over-the-counter enamel spray cans in a matching red to change the color of the interior of the doors, cabin, and engine/trunk because those areas were too hard to sand smooth and polish to a shine.

When we were finished the car ‘looked’ a million dollars …. needless to say I flipped it pretty quicky … selling it for $26,000. That was a decent profit for a not-long-out-of-college kid in the early 1980’s!

2. Mortgaging business assets

I mentioned in a previous post that I left my high-flying job just shy of 10 years to join my father in a very small finance business (just me, my father, and one administrative clerk); it didn’t perform very well, not even covering salaries. However, when my father got sick, I decided to buy out the family, leaving me $30k in debt.

The only problem was, that being a finance company, the business needed funding – bank funding, and a lot of it. The best solution that I could come up with was to find a bank who would treat the business assets (the ‘paper’ that we were funding) just like real-estate: I had no trouble finding a major bank willing to lend me 75% against those assets at a middling-to-high interest rate (leaving me to find the 25% deposit … by way of a partner whom I found then later bought out). The bank took no other security other than my personal guarantee … now, I have banks lining up to fund millions at up to 95% of those same assets (sub-prime or no sub-prime!) with no additional security and, now at an excellent rate.

3. No Money Down

Obviously, finding a partner for that business was a ‘no money down’ technique as applied to business, rather than real-estate. However, I came to the USA to sell some software to a related business. What I found was a business that had been family-owned for 50 years, allowed to run down, then been purchased by a large multinational for a ridiculous sum.

Naturally, the part of the business that I was interested in was not operating profitably, so instead of selling them my software and services to help them ‘fix’ the business themselves, I provided a cost-benefit that showed that they should give me majority share – for nothing – in return for taking over, and re-engineering its operations.

My team and I turned that business around in just a few, short months, and I sold my share to another public company for a huge gain (what’s the return on ‘no money down’? Infinite!) just 2 years later.

The point here is that money can be made anywhere, in any manner … all you need to apply is the NEED to achieve a certain level of financial result, the VISION to see a way to get there, and the PERSISTENCE to see it through …

… failure to do so will NEVER be for a lack of opportunity!

Age is NO obstacle!

Applications for my 7 Millionaires … In Training! ‘grand experiment’ are now closed. I will be announcing the Final 30 Applicants this Thursday at 8pm CST on my Live Chat Show … if you want to follow along, I will also be announcing the next Millionaire Challenge! This will help me decide the Final 15 … now for today’s post:

It seems that blogging and personal finance is a ‘young man’s game’ …

… not so!

At least, not according to Lee, who was yesterday’s Featured Applicant for my new 7 Millionaires … In Training! ‘experiment’.

You can read Lee’s story on the 7m7y site, but I wanted to share the following with you:

Lee is a ‘tad’ older than me 🙂 and is an e-mailer, emoticon’er, and … a blogger. Go Lee!

Whether Lee joins our program from the front-lines or the side-lines, he will succeed because age is NO impediment.

Here are two related stories:

1. There’s an old ‘urban myth’ that says that a retired ‘colonel’ with no money and no prospects at the age of 70 left for a journey across the USA, living out of his car! All he had was an old family recipe for chicken that he wanted to ‘licence’ to restaurants. 1,000 restaurants and 2 years later, all he had was a trunk-full of “no, thanks!”.

Then restaurant number 1,001 said “yes!” … and, that’s how Colonel Sanders came to launch Kentucky Fried Chicken (now, KFC) …  or so the story goes!

His actual story is a little less ‘dramatic’, but I really feel epitomises the path that people like Lee need to (and, can) take:  ‘The Colonel’ actually started at the age of 40, cooking chicken dishes for people who stopped at his little gas-station in Kentucky. 

At the time (he wasn’t a ‘Colonel’ yet) he did not have a restaurant, so he served customers in his apartment at the gas station!

Eventually, his local popularity grew, and Sanders moved to a motel/restaurant that seated 142 people where he just worked as the cook. Over the next nine years, he perfected his method of cooking chicken. Furthermore, he pioneered the use of a pressure-fryer that allowed the chicken to be cooked much faster than by pan-frying.

He was given the honorary title “Kentucky Colonel” in 1935 by the Kentucky State Governor. Ever the ‘salesman’, Sanders started to call himself “Colonel”, even dressing in the stereotypical “Southern gentleman” outfit that we are now used to seeing; he was the consumate marketer!

After the construction of a major highway bypassing his town reduced the restaurant’s business, Sanders had to leave so he took to franchising Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants, starting at age 65, using $105.00 from his first Social Security check to fund visits to potential franchisees.

To me, that’s the real story: a 65 year-old fry-cook funding a franchise from Social Security!

2. The second story is a little more personal … highlighting the moment when I can remember being most proud of my own father.

It was my 30th Birthday and my father was at my Surprise Party (I am so thick, I didn’t notice all the cars on the street, the late arrivals hiding behind the trees, or even the balloons when I walked in … boy, was I surprised!) happy as a Dad can be.

The next day he told me that it was on the day of my party that he had been fired from his job – what made it worse was that he had been ‘stabbed in the back’: it was a finance company that he helped start for a ‘friend’, who (once my father had done all the hard work to get the company up and running with a solid book of business) reneg’ed on their deal to pay my father a 33% profit share.

Just two weeks later, at the age of 60, my father had found an ‘angel’ for seed funding and a bank for the major funding and was off and running … a feat that I was (fortunately) able to repeat just a few, short years later (and, unfortunately that I HAD to repeat … but, that’s another story).

Lee, age is NEVER an obstacle …