The Control Your Cash Open-Book Quiz, Part I

Today's kids have terrible posture

Today’s kids have atrocious posture

Presenting the Control Your Cash Open-Book Quiz, complete with answers. For each of our next 3 posts (excluding Monday’s upcoming Carnival of Wealth), we’re going to put you in a fictional but plausible financial scenario. If you can figure out what steps you should take, then congratulations. You’ve got this stuff figured out and should be busy making deals instead of reading our site. This will make more sense once you read the 1st example:

 

Your friend just came back from Hawai’i, and you can tell it made an impression on her because she’s taken to spelling “Hawai’i” with the ‘okina. She and her husband bought a timeshare condo and think you should buy the adjacent one. That way you can take vacations together (!), which some people are into for some reason. If you ever get sick of Hawai’i, you can always exchange your timeshare week for one in Mexico, the Caribbean or Miami.*

 

The annual maintenance fees on the condo are $804, and the cheapest financing you can find is 11½%.  You’re going to put half down, and after 5 years all your vacations will be free.

What questions should you ask?
Do you have enough information?
If no, what else do you need and where would you get it?

 

When we’ve given this scenario to people in real life, the sharper ones usually stop and say, “Wait a second. 11½%?

 

We were being conservative. That rate is generous by timeshare lender standards. Here’s a company (DON’T CLICK THAT LINK, WHATEVER YOU DO) that charges 12.9% for the same loan. Why is timeshare financing so exorbitant, when the average residential loan is going for less than 3½% right now?

 

Profit maximization, that’s why. That, and one dumb customer base. Payday loan places charge 350% annual interest, rather than 5% or 10%, because their less-than-savvy customers want cash and they want it right now. Paying attention to rates? That’s for chumps. In the same vein, liquor stores not only kill alcoholics’ brain cells, the drunks pay them for the privilege (cf. cigarettes.) Someone on a modest income who has overconfident dreams of being a regular visitor to the Na Pali Coast isn’t going to be swayed by usurious interest rates. And no one ever said that both parties in a transaction have to be acting rationally.

 

The maintenance fee we gave was modest, too. But timeshare owners renters justify what they pay, because that’s what Monkey Brain (® Jason Hull 2013) inevitably does. A prospective timeshare renter sees $804 as a mere $15 a week. That little to keep the place painted and sprayed for bugs? Deal of the century!

 

Again, look at every deal from the other party’s perspective. (Which should have been the book’s title, except it’s unwieldy.) $804 in maintenance costs. Multiplied by 52 owners. The timeshare company is getting $41,808 a year per unit. No condo unit requires anywhere near that much maintenance, not even if DeAndre Hopkins and Mark Harrison each own a week. The $41,808 isn’t pure profit, but it’s a juicy markup.

 

The timeshare resale market is vibrant, and populated by buyers considerably smarter than the timeshares’ original buyers. If you made the error of buying a timeshare in the first place, you can expect to recoup no more than 20% of its price when you sell.

 

Why? Because the maintenance fees never go away. Nor do they ever decrease. Worse yet, many properties aren’t even owned by the timeshare companies that sold your week to you in the first place. Instead the properties are on long-term leases, which means that your timeshare will only be valid for the length of the lease. You’re not going to believe this, but that’s rarely the first line in the sale agreement.

 

There’s always someone who can justify buying a timeshare even though it’s a horrible investment. Here are a couple of the most common justifications:

  • It’ll be invaluable family time. Spending vacations together is more important than money could possibly be.
  • It’s not a “timeshare”, so much as it’s vacation ownership.

 

Yes, these objections are being articulated by a fictional rebutter of our own creation, but they’re still used all the time.

 

Few things have value that transcends money, e.g. health, eros, eternal salvation. A temporary living space in a desirable location doesn’t count, especially since it’s not a necessity. Nothing’s stopping you from buying plane tickets and renting a one-bedroom suite like normal people do. Which brings us to our second justification.

 

“Vacation ownership.” Think about that one for a minute. That the concept has to be shrouded in a piece of business jargon should tell you something about how valid it is. A vacation is temporary and evanescent, not unlike a round of golf or, for an even more commonplace example, lunch. The idea of somehow possessing it, whether in perpetuity or for future sale, is absurd. You purchase airfare and a room, you go on vacation, you come home, you pay your American Express bill in its entirety at the end of the month. The end. What is so hard about this, and why would you prefer a different method in which the payments never end?

 

On top of everything else, timeshares are the one “real estate” “investment” with zero tax benefits. You might as well just put the money earmarked for maintenance fees into a money market fund, and use that for a vacation each year.

 

Timeshares are among the starkest counterexamples we’ve found to the buy assets, sell liabilities mantra. On an individual level, there are few more efficient ways to impoverish oneself.

*Yes, we’re aware that Mexico and the Caribbean aren’t mutually exclusive. You go to the front of the class, Geography Dork.

Mail Pouch

Let's play "Guess What's In My Pouch", a game popular with kids in each hemisphere

Let’s play “Guess What’s In My Pouch”, a game popular with kids in each hemisphere

We’d call it a mailbag, but it features only one question. Here it is, barely edited:

Believe it or not, this is a real question (unlike what you find twice a week in The Simple Dollar’s mailbags), and one I haven’t been able to find an answer to thus far.

The situation: my wife and I are pushing right up against it.  In 2012, we were below it. In 2013….I have no idea where we’ll end up, but it’ll be right near the limit.

So here’s my question: if I don’t know if I’ll be above or below the income limit, can I/do I contribute to the Roth IRA? Why isn’t this clearer, by, for example, setting your ability to contribute THIS year to LAST year’s MAGI? (Duh — stupid government making things far too complex.) What happens if I contribute the max to our Roth IRAs this year but we end up OVER the limit? Do we have to pull our money out of the Roth IRAs?

Thanks

Chad, Chicago

Even though Chad’s a lawyer, we’re answering his question during one of our non-billable hours. MAGI is Modified Adjusted Gross Income, which to our horror we discovered that we’ve never defined on this site. By the way, if you think the term is redundant because “modified” and “adjusted” are synonyms or close enough, then you’ve never worked for the IRS. MAGI refers to the amount of income that serves as the baseline from which you’re allowed to make IRA contributions that you’re allowed to deduct from your taxes. MAGI derives from Adjusted Gross Income, which itself is a prolix way of saying “taxable income.” AGI is income (from taxable sources) minus the amounts that IRS agents have deigned to let you deduct. You want your AGI to be as low as possible, relative to your true income. MAGI adds some items back in, including any income you made in another country, student loans you took out, and for Chad’s purposes, contributions to his IRA.

Assuming Chad is under 50, he could contribute up to $5000 to his IRA for 2012, and $5500 for 2013. The income limit he’s referring to is $178,000 for him and his wife for 2013. Up to that point, he can contribute the maximum of $5000. Beyond $188,000 (not a typo), he can’t contribute anything. Between $178,000 and $188,000 is where it gets tricky.

Here goes, and we’ll try our best to turn the IRS’s impenetrable jargon into English. However much Chad & wife’s MAGI is over $178,000 (up to $188,000), he divides it by $15,000, and then subtracts that from 1, which gives a number between ⅓ and 1. Then, take that number and multiply it by the maximum contribution limit – again, $5500 for 2013. That’s the amount that Chad is permitted to contribute, reduced because of his inability to make a particular amount of money that doesn’t fall within the prescribed limits.

So what do to if Chad’s 2013 income, a work in progress, exceeds the limit? The way around it is to open another IRA, a traditional one, with the same company that manages his Roth IRA. At the end of the year, should he have contributed “too much” money to the Roth IRA, Chad can move the excess to the traditional one. No fuss, no muss. Of course, this is assuming that (sigh) neither he nor his wife qualifies for a 401(k) (or a 403[b], or something similar) at work.

(God, no wonder most personal finance bloggers write about how to build emergency funds and sell their DVDs on eBay. It’s way easier than this.)

Upon further review, sure enough Chad and his wife both qualify for 401(k)s. If they didn’t have 401(k)s, they still qualify for them, and that’s as bad as being there. So Chad plans to wait until December, at which point he’ll put a trivial amount – $100 or so – into both his and his wife’s Roth IRAs. By then he’ll obviously have a better idea of what his 2013 modified adjusted gross income will be. He’ll have until the following Tax Day to make contributions to his Roth IRA, contributions that will be considered as being made in or for 2013. He’ll be able to max out his Roth IRAs as much as possible, regardless of what his and his wife’s MAGI are.

There’s one more way around this. Chad and wife can still contribute to their 401(k)s of course, without worrying about the Roth IRAs. Beyond that, if they want to shelter even more of their money, they can read Chapter X of The Greatest Personal Finance Book Ever Written and create an S corporation or a limited liability company. Doing so is more than just shuffling paper – the business would have to be generate some form of income. But that doesn’t mean Chad would have to operate a hot dog cart on nights and weekends: said income can derive from investments. Then, he can shelter that income in a separate IRA, or a defined benefit plan. This is more complex than Chinese differential calculus, but the more money you make, the more you want to keep it from the taxman (and the harder Congress makes it for you to do so.)

Remember, the biggest difference between an IRA and a 401(k) is that the limits for the former are set by the IRS, those for the latter by your employer. We here at CYC prefer IRAs only because we hate having regular jobs.

Send your questions, masochistic or otherwise, to info @ ControlYourCash.com.

The Control Your Cash 2012 Woman of the Year

 

(Not pictured: CYC Woman of the Year commemorative sash and scepter)

(Not pictured: CYC Woman of the Year commemorative sash and scepter)

 

Every year we honor someone who embodies the Control Your Cash spirit, and name that person our Man of the Year. To win, all you have to do is buy assets, sell liabilities; and most importantly, act as the primary determinant of where your money goes instead of complaining about how the world is stacked in somebody else’s favor. That describes fewer people than you’d think, despite our best efforts to change the world’s collective mindset. Previous Control Your Cash Men of the Year have included a presidential candidate, a guy whom we never met yet who managed to lead an interesting and productive life despite making little money, and a CYC acquaintance who refuses to spend money stupidly and take on unnecessary expenses.

With 2012 in the bag, we’re proud to announce that its honoree is our first Woman of the Year. And a personal finance blogger, although that’s just a coincidence.

It’s Paula Pant, who runs Afford Anything and whose attitude and acumen we’ve espoused multiple times on this site. More to the point, she’s a real estate investor whose cash is flowing at a large enough volume that a significant chunk of her income now derives from investments. Investments of her own creation, no less.

Standard, incorrect thinking maintains that anyone who succeeds in this rapacious capitalist society of ours either a) came from money or b) killed herself by working 17-hour days and never coming up for air. The first is at best a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. The second is a sucker’s game, which you instinctively know, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Ms. Pant didn’t start off with gigantic privileges. She’s a 1st-generation American who grew up in a stable household of ordinary means, neither summering in the Hamptons nor panhandling for sustenance.

She didn’t even study corporate finance in college, nor neurosurgery, nor something else with a promise of immediate financial rewards upon graduation. Nor did she go to an Ivy League or other exclusive private college. She majored in sociology (of all things), at the University of Colorado. A school where most people major in weed, if you give credence to stereotypes.

We don’t know what kind of salary Paula draws, but she’s a freelance writer. Her direct income is probably closer to modest than it is to exorbitant. Yet she owns 3 rental properties, travels the world like she’s being chased by Interpol, and is still on the innocent side of 30. How is this possible, when the typical 20-something journalism graduate is

  • drowning in tens of thousands of dollars of student loans
  • often working retail, given the dubious long-term prospects for the business model of newspapers and magazines?

Short answer, Paula is a hopelessly original thinker. As proof of this, she wrote a post titled “If I Had $1 Million, I’d Go Into Debt” and wasn’t kidding. Most people are too dumb to draw a distinction between consumer debt (that monstrous VISA bill that you try to wish away the existence of) and smart leverage (borrowing money at x% so you can earn a return of x+y%, which is the only legitimate and lasting way for most of us to build wealth.) Paula is the exception.

She bought one of those houses at an 80% discount (not a typo). The house cost less than a new Ford F-150 without options, and while the house needed some cosmetic work, the effort she put into said work (her sweat, her contractor boyfriend’s sweat, the money she paid to some professionals) paid for itself several times over. And continues to, as her tenants are making her rich(er).

Last January, Ms. Pant announced that she was somewhat improbably going to invest every single penny she made in 2012. This wasn’t some character-building exercise, nor a New Year’s Resolution. It was a way to focus the “pain” of forgoing immediate luxuries in order to enjoy further and more pronounced pleasures. (Pleasures in the form of greater rental income, and ultimately greater self-determination. It also meant a year of deferring world travel, her passion.)

Wait, you mean you can invest your money obsessively and still enjoy life? Come on.

YES. What shameless self-promoter Tim Ferriss argues you can do in theory, Paula does in practice. And it doesn’t involve weighing your food to the nearest milligram, nor paying money up front to a fulfillment company and hoping for the best, nor hiring an Indian remote assistant to proofread your documents (which will invariably require another round of proofreading upon their return.)

Her priorities are specific, with flexible but detailed plans on how to get there. Contrast that with the directionlessness that most people exist under.

I hope I get a raise this quarter.
I really should ask for a raise.
Should I apply for another job? What if I don’t get it, then word gets around that I’m looking? Oh, I’ll be so screwed.
If I stay, they’ll match my 401(k). I couldn’t leave if I wanted to.
My landlady raised the rent again. So unfair. 

Look: most transactions in our society are mutually beneficial. Otherwise, they wouldn’t happen. For instance, no one likes paying rent, but it beats living under a bridge or with your parents. But fortunately (fortunately for the landed gentry, that is), there are plenty of people undisciplined enough that their very existence enriches the people who own things. And by “things”, we don’t necessarily mean high-rise apartment buildings or Class A shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock. A few single-detached rental properties in Atlanta will do.

Furthermore, it’s so easy to get to get to this position. All it takes is a tiny bit of motivation and again, discipline. Paula could have squandered paycheck after paycheck on unnecessarily expensive vacations and vehicles. Instead she travels largely on the cheap, sees no economic potential in $3000 leather car seats, and invests all the cash she has available. Not every investment turns to gold, of course, but it’s not that hard to minimize the potential risk. And as the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

When we talk about Paula’s modest background and stress that anyone with a brain can do what she’s done, we don’t mean to denigrate her nor her accomplishments. Far from it. Actually deciding to follow through on a plan, like Paula has done, is surprisingly difficult for many people to do. Most people, in fact. Better to lament one’s station in life than say, “I can do this, and will figure out how.” Paula Pant can, and did, and does. Leverage your assets into higher-valued ones, carry intelligent debt rather than stupid debt, and generate positive cash flow, and you could be a finalist for our 2013 Woman (or Man) of the Year.