Saturday, December 5, 2009

If You Want to be Rich, Stop Acting 'Rich'

A great personal finance article from Yahoo! Finance:-

If you want to be rich, you need to stop acting like you have money in the bank and start living beneath your means. That's the message in the most recent book from Thomas J. Stanley, author of "The Millionaire Mind" and the "The Millionaire Next Door."

Bankrate asked Stanley to explain what's fueling America's hyper-consumptive ways and unquenchable thirst for top-shelf brand vodka -- among other indulgences.






Q: In your book "Stop Acting Rich...and Start Living like a Real Millionaire," you say that rich people don't necessarily act the way that the rest of us might think they do. In fact, millionaires are more likely to be extremely frugal. Why is that?

A: There are many factors that explain frugality among the rich.

First, their parents tended to be not only frugal, but well-disciplined. Most millionaires today came from middle-class backgrounds. Their parents were not wealthy, but somewhat comfortable. Millionaires tell me that they never felt embarrassed by where they lived or the type of home they had. To a considerable degree, it is the uniquely American upward socioeconomic mobility that fuels much of the hyper-consuming engine of the market for luxury goods, prestige products, upscale brands, expensive homes and so on.

Beyond income, one's vocation has much to do with accumulating wealth. Educators, engineers, business owners and retail store managers have a tendency to live below their means and to be quite efficient in transforming their income into wealth.

It is the home/neighborhood environment that most explains one's ability to accumulate wealth. It may be useful for people to understand that there are 1,138,070 millionaire households living in homes valued under $300,000. This is far more than the 403,211 who live in homes valued at $1 million or more.

Q: You describe different levels of wealth in the book. There are the glittering rich, the income (statement) affluent and the balance sheet affluent.

A: The glittering rich make up a small fraction of 1 percent of the household population. They have a minimum annual household income of seven figures and a net worth of eight figures and more. They are extremely wealthy people, and they spend accordingly.

But, as I said in "Stop Acting Rich," no matter what they spend their money on, it is just a fraction of their overall net worth. In other words, even the glittering rich spend below their means. There are no more than 80,000 glittering rich households in a nation of more than 115,000,000 households.

The income statement affluent are those with high incomes and relatively low levels of net worth. They are not very productive in transforming their incomes into wealth. Many of the people in this category are highly compensated physicians, attorneys and executives. Many are driven to hyper-consume by their need to display high social status.

Farmers are found in high concentrations among the segment I refer to as balance sheet affluent. The balance sheet affluent are highly productive at transforming their income into wealth.

Among the most productive of this group are educators, engineers, owners of small businesses, and as mentioned, farmers.

Q: Who is buying most of the top-shelf brand vodkas, extravagant cars and homes and why?

A: The question of "who" really has two answers.

Status products and homes are more likely purchased by people who have higher incomes. Look at three socioeconomic measures: net worth or wealth, household income and the market value of a home. Which of these variables is best at predicting consumption of the items mentioned? The value of a home ranks first, income ranks second and wealth ranks third.

Again, while it is true that the people at the upper level of these measures have a higher propensity to consume prestige products, it is not necessarily the most significant market.

For example, most prestige makes of cars -- 86 percent -- are driven by nonmillionaires. Yes, people with very high incomes, high levels of wealth are more likely to drive status automobiles. But in sheer numbers, the largest consumer segment for pricey cars, vodkas and homes is not the millionaire population, it is the aspirationals. These are people who think they are acting rich via their adoption of prestige brands, but in most cases they are only acting like each other.

Why do these people act this way? In large part, they are trying to imitate economically successful people. They take their cues from Hollywood and the advertising industry. The problem is that most aspirationals know few, if any, really wealthy to emulate.

Would they still continue to drive prestige makes of cars if they knew that the No. 1 make of automobile among millionaires is the Toyota? Along these lines, would they still crave living in a $1 million home when they find out that nearly three times more millionaires live in homes valued at under $300,000 than live in those valued at $1 million or more?

Q: Should financial freedom be everyone's ultimate goal, and where does that leave the people whose life goals are simply to have some of the trappings of wealth, such as the nice house in the tony suburb and a European sports car?

A: America is often referred to as the land of the free. But most people in this country are not really free. They are tied to debt and a treadmill existence in terms of earning a living.

At this moment, our federal government has promised future social benefits in excess of $50 trillion. That figure is approximately the same amount of the total personal wealth held by Americans.

In the future, it is very likely that the government will not be able to provide the promised social benefits to our seniors. The typical household in the United States has a net worth of just over $90,000. That is about the same annual cost of a decent quality nursing home.

Also, if home equity and equity in motor vehicles is netted out of the $90,000, then the typical household's net worth drops down to about $30,000. That is only about 60 percent of the typical household's annual income. Therefore, it should be everyone's goal to provide for their economic future by being fiscally responsible.

Otherwise, what will happen when millions of seniors are no longer able to work and have little or no wealth accumulated? Many of them will become completely dependent upon their adult children or become destitute. The money that they spent on the trappings of wealth yesterday (the house in a tony suburb or a European sports car) will not pay for tomorrow's food, clothing and shelter (possibly a nursing home).

Q: How do you recommend that people become prosperous if they would prefer to get off the consumer treadmill?

A: The simplest way is to live below one's means.

The typical household should be able to put away 5 percent of their annual income while they are in their 30s, 10 percent when they are in their 40s, and 20 percent when they are in their 50s.

This is also related to satisfaction with life overall. There is a highly significant correlation between satisfaction in life and living in a home and neighborhood which are easily affordable.

What is a good rule if you are determined to become wealthy?

The market value of the home you purchase should be less than three times your household's total annual realized income. Also, if you are not yet wealthy, but want to be someday, never purchase a home that requires a mortgage that is more than twice your household's annual realized income.

Q: Do you have a sense that American consumer values are shifting from aspirational luxury purchases that seemed to be heavily marketed in the early 2000's asset bubble days to more frugal ones?

A: No, I don't think that the values are shifting.

The only reason that people aren't spending as much as they did prior to the current economic meltdown is that they don't have as much money to spend right now. We are a nation of hyper-consumers. We encourage our children to major in consumption and minor in frugality!

The smartest people in the world are in the marketing and advertising industries in this country. How else can you explain that 300 different brands of vodka coexist in our domestic market? In 2009, about 2.3 million American seniors will pass away. What did they do with the more than $2 trillion in income that they earned in their lifetimes?

I estimate that only 2.3 percent will leave behind a gross estate (all assets included) of $1 million or more. What did the other 97.7 percent of the decedents do with all of their income? If they did not save their income, invest it or allocate it to things that appreciate, where did the money go?

Beyond the basic necessities, an awful lot of it was spent on things, many things that now reside in landfills and thrift shops. We are and will continue to be a culture of hyper-consumption.

Original Article HERE

$

Monday, November 30, 2009

Investing Styles; Farmers vs Hunters

The Farmer/Hunter analogy is one that is quite widely used in business examples. I think it is especially suited when used to explain investing styles. This analogy is relevant in business settings because it deals with the act of 'getting' something (in this case food). Businesses are largely also involved in the getting of stuff; revenues, market share, customers etc. And in investing, of course the stuff we want to get is returns in the form of money.

Now, for a farmer, he invests his seeds and land and labor to produce food. A hunter, on the other hand, invests in training of skills and in effective equipment. He doesn't make or produce food, he takes it. Herein lies the essence of this dichotomy. One gets by making. The other gets by taking.

All the research that has ever gone into the farmer/hunter analogy deals with first discovering which one you are, then in the strategies and psyches you should adopt to pull them off.

For investors, farmers can be further classified into two types. I will call them Fruit Farmers and Tree Farmers.

The Fruit Farmer is our classic conservative income/dividend investor. Just like planting fruit trees so that he can harvest the fruits later, this investor buys stocks for what they can yield. The stock itself is not the matter of concern. It wouldn't really matter if the tree stayed the same size (price of stock stays flat), as long as it continues to produces fruits (dividends) each quarter. Only after a long period of time and the fruit tree eventually dies of old age (the company declines) does he sell out and select a new fruit tree to plant.

The Tree Farmer, on the other hand, is not so interested in what his trees produce. His attention is on the tree itself (the stock price). This guy will select the seeds which have the potential to grow the fastest (high-growth companies), and when they are grown, cut them down to be sold as timber (sell the stock). This is your typical growth investor.

Then, we have our Hunter. The Hunter may not qualify to be termed an investor, for he is more of a speculator. He is not interested in fruits and trees. He wants meat; instant kills that provide plenty of food immediately. But of course, in the course of his hunt, he faces the risk of getting eaten by whatever it is he is trying to kill. Hunters will spend time scouting for a target (scanning the news for market anomalies to exploit). Then, when he sets his sights on a likely target, he will track his prey (follow price movements and graphs) until he finds an opportunity to strike. When the chance finally presents itself, he steels his nerves and readies himself for the shot. And like any technical/momentum trader, he only has one shot. Screw up, and lunch runs away (or comes at you and eats you instead).

In conclusion, where Fruit Farmers pick companies with stable revenues and strong cash flows, and Tree Farmers pick companies that have room to grow and expand, Hunters don't really care about the fundamentals of the company, and rely more on market sentiment and trends. Where farmers view stock investment as buying shares in businesses (ala Buffett), hunters view stocks as any other commodity, and trades them according to forecasts of demand and supply.

[A note to newbie (and not so newbie) investors]
Although the Hunter style seems so much sexier and more exciting, bear in mind that it is likely to get you killed. Imagine giving a 10 year old boy some seeds, a plot of soil and exact instructions on how to plant and harvest. It is quite likely he will have a successful go at it as long as he is smart and conscientious enough. But what if you give him a rifle with exact instructions on how to hunt down a lion? You'd be lucky if he doesn't pee in his pants, let alone release a shot. As Jim Rogers said, farming is the way of the future. But he meant it literally, of course.


Andrew Chua

$

Thursday, November 26, 2009

The Impact of Scalability on Business


“The concept of scalability applies to technology and business settings. Regardless of the setting, the base concept is consistent - The ability for a business or technology to accept increased volume without impacting the contribution margin.” ~ Wikipedia

In plainer language, scalability means that the profits on each transaction will remain the same regardless of how many transactions you do; and there's no limit to the number you can do. (Practically, even scalable activities have certain limits, but those limits are very far off.) An example would be a recording artiste who produces CDs for sale. This would be a scalable business, because the margin on each CD is the same, and they would gladly sell as many CDs as you can buy.

An example of a non-scalable business would be a car-repairman. His time is limited. He can only work on one car at a time. Maybe if he hires assistants he can accept more engagements (but if he does that, then he is a businessman more than a repairman).

There are many exhortations that encourage us to look for scalable businesses. It would seem that it is obvious you can make more profits and there would be greater potential for growth. But surely, there must be a downside?

And of course, there is a downside. That downside is called “competition”.

Although there is also competition in non-scalable fields such as car-repairs, that type of competition is not so deadly for a very simple reason. The very fact that it is non-scalable means even the best repairman can only work on so many cars in a workday. Therefore, even those who would prefer his service might end up going to others if they need their fix in a hurry. Being good would mean that you would always have a full list of jobs, but you can't go further than a certain point. Therefore, even newcomers and less-than-perfect repair guys would end up with some crumbs falling off the table. There's a good chance you'd survive in a non-scalable business as long as you are minimally competent.

The competition in a scalable business, however, is much more lethal. There is simply no room for second rate performers. If you are a Michael Jackson fan and want to buy his CD, you would probably be able to get it no matter how busy he is at the moment you perform the purchase. In fact, you can still get it now even that he is no longer in this world. Where does that leave new up-and-comers? No one will settle for an unknown singer as a substitute for MJ because MJ is too busy to sing for them, because it's the CD that sings for them. Therefore, only the very very best (and luckiest) of the new crop would be able to make it to the consciousness of the public. Not just in music, but also in instant noodles, cars, computers, soft drinks, websites and watches. Because of the scalability of the established brands, newcomers face a difficult time trying to survive, let alone thrive.

So, it is no real surprise that many people end up as employees or self-employed in a service line. It is definitely easier to survive in a non-scalable activity, and the lifestyle would be less uncertain, albeit busy (for the good ones, anyway).

There are two sides to every coin, an upside as well as a downside. We should be more aware of both.

The following book touches on this topic in more detail:-





Andrew Chua

$

Microsoft vs Apple

Microsoft bigger and more profitable, and better in just about every way as shown below. Except that they are seemingly having some hiccups with regards to quarterly growth. Windows7 should fix that though...



Click the Pic for Bigger Image.

Figures sourced from: Yahoo! Finance

$

The World According to Americans






$

Friday, November 20, 2009

Thank God it's FRIDAY!

A MUST WATCH for all Friday lovers!



$

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Dell PC + Windows 7 OS; Move aside, Mac...



$