Archives for December 2010

So much stupidity

Money to burn

Here's another way to Control Your Cash: use hackneyed, royalty-free, low-res images instead of paying for them or making your own

In lieu of original research, we’re letting the New York Times carry our load this week. With a story about Nick Martin, a community college teacher (What do you call the instructors at community colleges? Teachers? Professors? Babysitters?) in Kansas.

In 1998, Nick inherited $10 million when the family billboard company found a buyer. Today, he makes $51,000 teaching winemaking to kids who weren’t smart enough to get into Kansas State. Not because he needs to occupy his time, but because he needs to pay bills.

Oh my God! If he can’t make ends meet on 8 digits, I have no hope. This recession will surely kill us all.

Look, times are fantastic for very few of us. Even the Control Your Cash authors wouldn’t mind turning the clock back to 2007. But Martin and his family did the surest things possible to guarantee economic meltdown. They bought liabilities, and they sold (or at least, failed to buy) assets.

$10 million is enough to allow you to live comfortably for the rest of your life, but only if you use it intelligently. $10 million is not enough to allow you to live comfortably if you’re going to spend profusely. There’s rich, and then there’s rich. Larry Ellison gets to squander $10 million. Nick Martin doesn’t.

The Martins owned an Aston Martin and 2 other “stylish” cars; a $173,000 horse and 2 others; and Nick “treated his wife, Kate, to a birthday weekend at the Waldorf-Astoria, with dinner at the ‘21’ Club and a $7,000 mink coat.”

This is the game plan of someone who prefers being rich to staying rich.

First, people still wear fur in the 21st century? To what end? Not to endorse PETA’s oeuvre of ketchup-throwing and nude street performance art, but come on. If keeping warm is that important to Kate, how about this?

The creature modeling this was last seen on the cover of Black Sabbath's Mob Rules album

We just found one on eBay for $226. It works in negative temperatures. It’s good enough for Ed Viesturs to endorse and climb Everest in (he’s the only North American to reach the summit of every 8000-meter peak in the world.) So, it’s probably good enough for Mrs. Martin’s delicate constitution. Nor does the Mountain Hardwear jacket require minks to get skinned, although some geese did lose their feathers. Oh, and it costs 97% less than a mink coat, but, as we’re sure Nick would attest, it’s only money.

We take it back. Being fashionable is crucial, even if it means self-impoverishment.

The Martins’ cash flow was either negative or nonexistent. He jetted to England to pen a novel (an utterly douchey phrase that, God willing, will never describe this writer), one unavailable on Amazon and whose only Google mentions were in reference to Nick Martin’s inability to sell a single copy.

As to the $173,000 horse – and we’re guessing the other two weren’t old gray mares, either – why would you own a horse?

-breeding
-racing
-companionship
-labor.

On LiveryStable.net, horses range from $200 to $12,000. The average Arabian will set you back about $2000. If you want a challenge, you can adopt an authentic Great Basin mustang for $125. In claiming races – those thoroughbred stakes contests where anyone can buy the participants – $20,000 is standard. That’s for a trained, functional, healthy horse with a marketable skill. Bob Baffert can justify paying $173,000 for a horse, and would presumably know which aren’t worth that much. An equine amateur, especially a 59-year old legacy kid like Nick, presumably doesn’t.

What’s the return on investment with an Aston Martin? The story doesn’t say which model Nick bought, but the carmaker’s cheapest, the V8 Vantage, goes for around $120,000. Is it presumptuous to guess that he might have gone one step up and bought the Rapide (it means “fast”), which retails for $200,000? Or is Aston Martin-shopping the one facet of Nick’s life in which he exercises restraint?

The 3 highest current bids for Aston Martins on eBay Motors:

-$99,000
-$85,000
-$61,255.

Those bids tell us a little, but not everything. For more details, we should look at the highest bids that meet the seller’s reserve price (i.e. the price a seller can set at which he has the right to refuse any lower offer.) One problem: there aren’t any. Every single Aston Martin on the world’s largest used car site is definitively overpriced. Which, if you’re Nick Martin, clearly means you need to raise your bid.

In his own words: “We spent too much. I have a 4th grader, an 8th grader and a girl who just finished high school. I should have kept working and put the money in bonds.”

Well, if you wanted to. But you also could have, hmm, well, let’s see…not spent recklessly? Most people amass wealth, or attempt to, so they won’t have to work. It’s unclear what Nick did for a living, but he did work for his father’s winery – not to be confused with the billboard company, which Nick only sat on the board of.

Nick says some angel with a checking account took the Aston Martin off his hands for $395,000, an improbable claim the New York Times reporter accepted. That’s $125,000 more than the most expensive used Aston Martin available on the company’s own website. The priciest new Aston Martin at Control Your Cash’s nearest dealership costs $306,165.

Maybe Nick’s just atrocious at math and didn’t actually buy a quarter-million dollar plot in the Adirondacks and build a $5.3 million estate on it, wiping out most of his principal. No, wait, he did.

Someone recently offered Nick ¼ of that, which would have covered the $1.2 million mortgage. He refused, for reasons you’d have to ask him. Nick also owns, or finances, a home in Vermont where his wife and kid temporarily live. The wife makes $12,000 a year there and plans to join Nick in Kansas later this month.

Yet he blames bankers, lenders, and market conditions for some of his misfortune. All of which will certainly bring his spent millions back.

Reuse, recycle. (Already reduced)

Neptune

Neptune. Stayed undiscovered for centuries, has no people. Now THAT's a smarter planet.

This post ran on Free From Broke back in June. Let’s see how prescient it looks today.

Why do people get excited when their favorite retailer holds a sale, but not when Wall Street does?

Let’s start with the obligatory disclaimer – this is not an encouragement nor a discouragement to buy or sell particular securities, stocks carry risk, consult a financial advisor but you don’t have to, etc.  That was for that infinitesimally small segment of the population that is a) literate enough to read this post, yet b) dumb enough to do whatever a disembodied online voice suggests.  There, now you can read the post absolved of any obligation to think.

Most investors know, in theory, that it’s foolish to buy at the top of the market and sell at the bottom. (Of course, human nature means that the opposite is true in practice – otherwise the top and bottom wouldn’t be where they are.)  But it’s equally foolish to assume that the market will carry you along indefinitely if you just buy a flat representation of it and don’t research at all.  We have 12+ years of real-world evidence of that.  Factoring in inflation, the Dow has risen by an average of .4% annually since February of 1997.  Your index fund would have been better off if it had collected tin cans since the Packers last won a Super Bowl. (1.3% annually now. The Packers are 8-to-1 to win the Super Bowl.)

There is such a thing as overdiversification. You might find stability in a comprehensive index fund, but it’s impossible to find any significant value.  Buying a basket of Dow stocks, or something similar like a Wilshire 5000 index fund, will likely give fantastic returns over an 80-year period.  If you plan on not waiting until you’re 115 years old to enjoy your money, there are more targeted ways to go about attempting to build wealth in the stock market.

Instead, look at companies that are temporarily wounded, i.e. whose stock sells at a discount. Earlier this year, when the global CEO of Toyota (NYSE: TM) was being grilled on Capitol Hill for selling cars to people who confused the brake with the accelerator, the company’s stock sank.  But some fleeting bad PR can’t negate a decades-long reputation for value and quality.  A few weeks after our demonstrative congressmen and senators finally pulled the curtain on their combination political theater/witch trial, Toyota stock had quietly gained 15%.

Around the time Toyota emerged from a bruising at the unfair hands of public opinion, British Petroleum (NYSE: BP) made Toyota’s problems look trivial.  BP traded at $60.48 the day the Deepwater Horizon spill began.  Today it’s at $36.52, a 60% drop.  (And now it’s at 42.81, an annualized 37% return from when we recommended buying. Why are we not giving stock tips professionally? Oh, right, the licensing exams.) The rig’s manufacturer, Transocean (NYSE: RIG), has fallen from $92.03 to $50.04 over the same period, a 46% decline.  (And today it’s at 70.93, an annualized 101% return. AHEM.) Fortunately for Transocean, it’s in an industry with few players.  Also, most people had barely heard of it since it doesn’t sell directly to the public.  (When was the last time you bought an oil rig?)  This distinguishes Transocean from BP, which plasters its logo everywhere and goes out of its way to embed itself in the public consciousness.  Thanks to that insistence, almost everyone identifies the Gulf of Mexico spill with BP more than they do Transocean.

Both BP and Transocean have otherwise healthy financials that can normally withstand a one-time event. Then again, Deepwater Horizon is some event.  But a wounded company isn’t a doomed company: despite the Exxon Valdez disaster, ExxonMobil went from pariah to the world’s most profitable company in just a few years.  Johnson & Johnson rebounded after the Tylenol scare of 1982 and came back stronger than ever.  There are several ways to murder a company along with its stock: obsolescence (Atari), poor economics (General Motors) and rampant crime (Enron) are three of the most efficient.  But for a temporarily disabled company with a history of success and goodwill (in the general sense, not the accounting sense)?  A resurgence is more likely than you think.  Don’t confuse a broken bone with a bullet wound through the cranium.

One more time: there’s always value somewhere in the stock market, but very rarely can you make money simply by buying into the market as a whole.  In fact, the times when the market (as a whole) rises fastest are when the gains are most dubious and tentative – case in point, the dot-com bubble and ensuing crash.  More accurately, there’s always value in the stock market among particular entrants.  Finding the ones whose stock prices have suffered for no better reason than that of public perception is as wise a place as any to start.

Apropos of nothing, Walmart might be looking at a sexual discrimination suit with 1.4 million plaintiffs this week. The stock lost $47 million in market capitalization in one trading day this week. A good time to sell? Start this post again at the beginning.

Our Anti-Couple Of The Year

Control Your Cash: Anti-couple of 2010

75 is the new 125

In 5 weeks we’ll give out our Man Of The Year award. There’s no formal set of criteria for it, but it’s fair to say that we give it to someone who does a lot with less than a lot.

Nor are there formal criteria for nomination, but we recently discovered the least qualified candidates in existence (non-government category.)

If you read Control Your Cash with any regularity, you’ll know that our opinions on gambling are unambiguous. Don’t.

Meet Violet and Allan Large of Truro, Nova Scotia, who spent $11 million of their gambling winnings in 3½ months. And people are commending them for it. If you needed any further proof that Canadians are monotonal, obsequious milquetoasts who enjoy being acted upon, this is it.

The Larges played Canada’s iconic Lotto 6/49, in which you pick 6 of the first 49 positive integers. Odds of winning are thus 13,983,816 to 1. The Larges nailed it and took home $11.2 million. Canadian lottery jackpots aren’t subject to tax, the eminently reasonable argument being that you paid the tax when you bought the ticket.

Ma & Pa Large “took care of family first”, according to an amateurishly written story that doesn’t specify how many family members that entails. The story also claims the Larges “don’t gamble”, leaving open the question of what activity buying a lottery ticket should be classified as. Then, the Larges cut checks (excuse us, “cheques”) to firemen, churches, hospitals, cemeteries (cemeteries need money?), the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, etc.
If a pro athlete did this with jewelers instead of cemeteries, hack sportswriters across North America would proselytize against it. Bob Ley would devote an ESPN Outside the Lines special to it. But if some astonishingly dull couple does it, people want to beatify them.

The Larges kept $200,000, or $100,000 apiece. Let’s assume Violet dies in the next couple of years: she doesn’t have the hairstyle of a woman with a lot of time left. Is the remainder really going to be enough to keep everyone comfortable? Self-made multimillionaire Paul Stanley put it best:

“ALRIGHT! I KNOW EVERYBODY’S HOT! EVERYBODY’S GOT…ROCK AND ROLL PNEUMONIA! SO LET’S CALL OUT – DR. LOVE!”

Sorry. He did say that, but more to the point, he said:

“The best part about having money is not having to worry about having money.”

Contrast that with Violet Large:

“What you’ve never had, you never miss.”

The self-contradictory old kook borrows her philosophy from ancient bromides and fortune cookies, adding that “Money can’t buy you…happiness.” If the recipients of her largesse share that belief, they aren’t acting as if they do.

Were Control Your Cash an ordinary personal finance site, this is the part of the post where the author would write, “Would you give away $11 million? What would you do if you won the lottery?”

We don’t care. Here’s what you should do.*

Sell liabilities. Buy assets. No matter how much money you have, that never changes.

At least the Larges don’t appear extravagant. (No, really, they don’t. In case you didn’t notice.) We can only hope, maybe assume, that they own their house free and clear. And it’s true that staring at each other across the kitchen table costs little.

If you’ve got any kind of overarching debt that incurs large interest, and you come into a windfall, pay that debt off in its entirety. If you need the cash to capitalize on an investment with a larger return than the return you’re giving the lender on whatever it is you’re borrowing, then maintain the status quo if it involves a spread you feel comfortable with. In other words, if you finance a $50,000 car at 11%, but you’ve got $50,000 in an investment with a guaranteed 12% return, enjoy your annual $500 profit. But such examples are rare in the real world. When you’ve got the cash, it’s almost always better to pay the debt off, start again at 0 instead of at -11%, and start looking for an investment that pays you more than a net 1%. Which shouldn’t be hard to do.

And if you’re so devoid of ambition that you can’t think of a single exotic place to visit or an experience to enjoy that requires you to spend a few bucks, join the Larges in Nova Scotia and together you can watch the ground freeze.

P.S.: They’re still buying lottery tickets.

*Someone, possibly that disagreeable Nancy woman from that one blog, is reading this and saying “How dare those arrogant people tell us what we should do with our hypothetical money.” Fine, we’ll refund your blog-reading fee.