The Best Investments Are Easy To Find. Assuming You’re Looking.

This is what money looks like.

This is what money looks like.

 

When’s the last time you bought a 900-to-1500 ft2 diatomaceous earth filtration unit? Alright, that question was kind of specific. So when was the last time you bought a diatomaceous earth filtration unit of any size?

We’ve talked before about the Barbra Streisand investing strategy, in which you buy the stocks of products you use. (Ms. Streisand bought Starbucks stock because “we go to Starbucks every day.”) Taken to its logical extension, this would result in an economy that consisted solely of consumer products, which is impossible. A vibrant economy, or even a moribund one, contains plenty of goods and services that facilitate the delivery of your marked-up coffee and your social networking sites. You never think twice about those background goods, but would have great difficulty living without them. So…wouldn’t it make tons of sense to at least examine the stocks of the companies that make them? Especially since relatively few people are already doing it?

Unless you live in Houston, and even then, you’ve probably never heard of Schlumberger. Even its name sounds hopelessly square, like a 1950’s-era retail store. (“Ladies, come to Schlumberger’s for wash-and-wear clothes in all the latest space-age fabrics! You’ll love the selection, and your husband will love our prices! Dial KLondike 5-1239 for business hours. Now accepting charge cards.”)

Except Schlumberger a) was founded in France (it’s pronounced shlum-ber-zhay’) and 2) is light-years removed from that. It’s the world’s largest oilfield services company. What does that mean?

Well, say you have a claim (or “prospect”, to use the appropriate jargon) on a patch of seafloor in the Gulf of Mexico. Underneath it are millions of cubic yards of hydrocarbons, ready to be converted into petroleum and related fluids. You have a vessel that can contain the oil, or proto-oil, but how do you get it through vertical miles of ocean and into your hold?

With a subsea landing string/electrohydraulic operating system, that’s how. Basically a telescoping tube that collects your paydirt and sends it up. But you also want it to verify that it’s properly installed, given that you can’t exactly slap on some scuba gear and determine so for yourself. And it’d be nice if you could shut it off automatically in an emergency, preferably without getting your fingers wet.

These ain’t cheap, as you can imagine. Nor are directional drilling motors, nor flexible cement that seals your well off from the rest of the ocean and keeps the fish from getting dirty. Schlumberger is just one company that does all of the above and much else, and the next time you complain about how much you’re paying at the gas pump you should think about the tens of billions of dollars in capital investment it takes to fill up your precious fruity Prius.

The point is that there’s a vast sea of hidden value out there – the bottom of the iceberg, to introduce yet another tired and oceanic-themed analogy. Enormous corporations that provide vital services and products, and that no one outside of the industry gives a second thought to. Schlumberger pulled in $42 billion in revenue in 2012, and that number’s gone up every year. Its profit margins are huge, especially given what a capital-intensive industry it’s in. Despite the best efforts of solar and wind advocates, there’s no escaping the truth that oil provides denser and more easily obtainable energy than just about any substance short of uranium. In other words, demand for Schlumberger’s customers’ products (and by extension, Schlumberger’s products themselves) won’t be reducing anytime soon. There are other oilfield services companies, but Schlumberger is the largest.

Do you now how many individual investors own Schlumberger? Fewer than 10,000. At $73 a share it isn’t cheap in absolute terms, but that’s down from its 2008 apogee. Price/earnings ratio is 18, on the high end for the industry but not insurmountable. And of course there’s a dividend, currently $1.25 per year. (Like most companies of its size, Schlumberger pays its dividend out quarterly.)

It doesn’t have to be Schlumberger. There are scores of companies that are hiding in plain sight, making hundreds of millions of dollars apiece and comprising significant chunks of the S&P 500 and other indices. AXA. Allianz. Cardinal Health. Or from our last post, McKesson.

Okay, great. But I have no idea how to do this.

Sure you do. Read the chapter on investing in our book. It’s at least as easy to get through as this post is. Pick up our e-book, the obtrusive ad for which you probably ignored and reflexively closed when you logged onto the site just now. Refresh and try it again, because there really is an unglamorous secret to riches. Several secrets, in fact. And you’re not going to find them anywhere that intersects with pop culture and lowest-common-denominator mass media.

We’re So Smart It’s Terrifying

Awful

Awful

 

Two years ago we wrote a post on the foolishness of getting caught up in topical and exciting initial public offerings. And this was back when Facebook was still privately held.

For the unsophisticated among you, yet another piece of knowledge that’s so obvious it’s easy to miss:

Your bank account understands only numbers. It doesn’t care about social buzz, popularity, trendiness, your Pinterest board, what Jay-Z has to say about diversification, or what your friends are doing (especially what your friends are doing.) That bank account is antiseptic and uninterested (disinterested, really) in your workaday concerns. It only sits there. It doesn’t even necessarily want to grow. Great if it does grow, but getting it to do so is your problem. Your financial balances don’t want to grow because they don’t want to do anything. They have no capacity for desire, nor any other emotion. And with respect to money, neither should you.

Seriously, what is the point of snapping up Zynga stock the moment it goes on sale? For a lot of people, it goes no deeper than “Here’s this product/service that I use, and now shares of the company that makes it are available for purchase. Therefore, I can take both figurative and literal ownership of it, and derive validation that way.” If it’s important for you to self-identify as an avant-garde shareholder, in tune with the New Economy, Business 2.0, stop reading. You’re going to hurt yourself.

Folks, we’re in this for one thing only. MONEY. It’s all that matters, at least for our purposes. Otherwise go find a personal fulfillment blog or one of those unreadable debt blogs instead. Here’s one to get you started.

Back to the summer of 2011. It was a simpler time. Prince William and the incipient Duchess of Cambridge had just moved out of their parents’ places and in together. South Sudan didn’t yet exist as an independent nation. Amy Winehouse still had a pulse. And Crumbs Bakery went public.

Our parents’ generation had little trouble discerning between Things of Importance (work, responsibility, knowing how to fix a carburetor) and Trivialities (self-expression, keeping your friends apprised of your hour-to-hour activities.) Cupcakes were on the latter list, and near the bottom.

We maintained that a business predicated on the creation and delivery of cupcakes was something better suited for prepubescent neighborhood girls than for a NASDAQ-listed company. Or for a NASDAQ Capital Market-listed company. (That’s the real NASDAQ’s developmentally delayed cousin.)

Crumbs went in the toilet, and quickly. It took 2 months to lose half its value, which it never regained. In fact, it took another 6 months to lose half its value again. It’s since lost yet another half of its value and then some, making Crumbs stock a Zeno’s Tortoise of sorts.

Why was this an awful investment? Well, we already told you way back then, but if you didn’t click the link:

  • The company expanded way too quickly. 
  • It doesn’t take a tenured college professor to determine that cupcake demand is pretty elastic. The lower your income falls, which it likely has if you’ve lived in the United States since Crumbs’ inception, the smaller the ratio of it you’re going to spend on sugary treats.
  • Barriers to entry? Any idiot with a pan and some non-stick spray can bake muffins.
  • You’re probably fat. Eat some celery instead.

Our recommendation instead was to invest in Crumbs’ antithesis. A company beyond uncool. There isn’t even any room for this company on the hipness continuum. You can’t savor their products, or even touch most of them. McKesson distributes wholesale drugs and medical supplies. And it sells clinical software to hospitals, too. Is that getting you excited? If not you, then how about the lifestyle editor at The New York Times Magazine? Did Sex & The City ever do an episode about workflow management for osteopaths?

McKesson is up 38% in the last year and a half, or about 12,800 basis points more than Crumbs. If we told you one of these companies would be bankrupt in a year – McKesson, which pulls in $122 billion annually; or Crumbs and its $14 million market capitalization, with operating expenses that eat up its gross profit and then some every quarter – which would you pick?

People like to think they want more money than they currently have. But in practice, lots don’t. The ones who dabble in investing, more properly dubbed speculating in their cases, mostly have motivations other than that of increasing their net worth. We aren’t completely sure what those motivations are, and we don’t care. The road to building wealth doesn’t have to be glamorous to be effective, and probably shouldn’t. If everyone’s talking about an investment, it doesn’t mean it’s worth investing in. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not worth investing in, either, but maybe you should use measuring sticks other than public natter.

The Control Your Cash Open-Book Quiz, Part II

Fun with homonyms

Fun with homonyms

 

Today, the 2nd installment in the Control Your Cash Open-Book Quiz. Yes, it’s several weeks late. That’s called sheer procrastination creating anticipation. Anyhow, the Open-Book Quiz works like so: we give you a scenario and a wad of theoretical cash, and you decide what to do with both. See the previous post in the series if this makes no sense. In fact, it almost certainly won’t.

 

You’ve found a house being sold short, and listed at $100,000. A tenant is already renting it, and is on a lease for the next year at $1000/month.  Similar nearby houses sell for $100,000-$125,000. With 20% down, you can get a 3½% fixed mortgage.

Is this a good deal, or not?

Before you sign a contract, or commit the equally meaningful step of walking away from signing a contract, make sure you know exactly what you’re getting into. One way to do that is to always start with an investment policy. You can’t decide what to invest in until you know what outcome you’re looking for, and how much risk and volatility you’re willing to tolerate to get it.

Here we have a cheap house and cheap money, indicative of the historical double nadir we’re experiencing in the prices of both real estate and its financing. Even though today’s post is only a fictional exercise, the truth remains: Never has there been a better time to buy a house, especially as an investment. We’ve been saying this for years, but market forces (and governmental perversion of them) haven’t yet changed enough for us to recalibrate our opinion.

The 3rd selling point here is the immediate tenant. One who’s already on a lease is a perfect illustration of how vital cash flow can be to an investment that looks good on paper but might not work in practice. No matter how attractive an investment might be, you can’t build wealth entirely on speculation. You need monthly checks. Preferably sooner than later. That empty plot of land on the edge of a burgeoning town might octuple in value over the next 18 months. Or it might just sit there without anyone ever making an offer. Ceteris paribus, buy the property that promises you income while you’re waiting for effortless riches down the road.

To determine the value of this investment in comparison to others into which you might commit a comparable amount of money, you need to get to a common rate of return.  Apples vs. apples and all that. That means it’s time to do a little math. In these examples, we’re going to calculate the value of the property based on its cash flow only.

Here are the terms and formulas you need to know:

Potential Rental Income. The shekels generated by the property in a theoretical, fully rented world. A world where you never have a vacant day, and in which every outgoing tenant is replaced by a fresh tenant later that evening. This world can only be approximated, never reached.

Vacancy Rate. The number of empty, unrented units in the property, divided by the total number of units. This only applies to properties with multiple units, of course. A 10-unit apartment complex with 8 rented units has a 20% vacancy rate. A 1-unit house has a vacancy rate of either 0 or 100%.

Gross Rental Income. Potential rental income x (1 – the vacancy rate.)  Intuitively, this should make sense. Call (1 – the vacancy rate) the occupancy rate if you have trouble with abstractions.

Operating Expenses. All the costs of running the property excluding the loan payment.

Net Operating Income. Gross Rental Income – Operating Expenses.

(It’s obvious that those are minus signs and not em dashes, right? Oh God it isn’t, is it? Start again from the top.)

Cash Flow (before taxes and depreciation.) Net Operating Income – loan payments.

That’s the big one, the one that marks the difference between legitimate landlords and people who are just treading water until they’re forced to sell to someone who knows what she’s doing.

Now that you know how much cash will flow from your potential investment, you need to find out how it compares to other potential investments. By using these handy formulae:

Capitalization rate. Net Operating Income/(Purchase price + closing costs)

Cash-on-Cash return. Cash Flow/(Down payment + closing costs)

Run the numbers for those last two right now. We’ll wait.

Most investors focus on capitalization rate to the exclusion of everything else. On some level, capitalization rate (or if you want to sound knowledgeable, “cap rate”) is the closest analog to the rates of return you can expect with other investments. Mutual funds, etc.

Cash-on-cash return, which should be several times higher than cap rate if you did this correctly and checked your work, is the investor’s grand secret weapon. And testament to the wisdom of getting rich off OPM. Wait, that means it’s time for one last formula:

Other People’s Money. Your investment – your personal funds invested.

You can’t do this without leverage. Which is to say, without borrowing money from a lending institution and focusing it on an opportunity that promises you a greater capitalization rate than the interest you’re paying the bank. Capitalization rate measures cash flow of the property relative to investment. Cash-on-cash return changes based on how the buyer (that’s you) finances. The cheaper the financing, the higher the return.

In our above example, the cap rate is 7.77%. The cash-on-cash return is 15.10%.

Where else can you invest $26,000 and get that kind of return?

Wait. We’re not done yet. There are the tax benefits. You’ll be able to deduct the expenses of the property, plus depreciation (about $2,500 for this property) against the income you earn.  Your tenant will be paying your mortgage payment, which means every month you’ll own a little bit more equity. Finally, the property might just appreciate it value. There’s a downside, but it’s outnumbered.

 

Note: The information we used appears on the attached spreadsheet. Should you be inclined to download it, it’s called an Annual Operating Property Datasheet. In the real world you’d get this information directly from the seller, or from your realtor if she’s any good. Failing that, go to your county assessor or tax collector website.