Biological Kids Are Better Than Adopted Ones, Aren’t They?

 

 

Mommy’s favorites

 

Congratulations to the San Francisco Giants, world champions for the 2nd time in 3 years. However, this year’s title comes with an asterisk. The Giants won 94 games during the regular season. Breaking it down by pitchers:

  • 46 of those wins came from guys originally signed by the Giants (Matt Cain, Madison Bumgarner, Tim Lincecum, Sergio Romo.)
  • 24 came from free agents (Barry Zito, Santiago Casilla, Jeremy Affeldt, Shane Loux).
  • 18 from guys who started with the Giants, went to other teams, and eventually returned to San Francisco after being released elsewhere (Ryan Vogelsong, Clay Hensley)
  • 5 from pitchers the Giants traded for (Javier Lopez, George Kontos)
  • and 1 from a guy claimed off waivers (Jose Mijares).

So really, the Giants earned only 46 wins of those wins via their drafting and scouting prowess, 64 if you count the guys who left and came back. Either way, those are hardly playoff-caliber numbers.

What kind of an imbecile are you? Who gives a flying one how the Giants acquired the pitchers, as long as they won those games while wearing Giant uniforms? God, this site is awful. And it used to be good, too.

So you’re saying wins commingle.

Of course.

Money does too, but fewer people seem to grasp that.

One of the dumbest things you can do, not that it stops most people, is mentally segregate funds by their origin. Money from the stuff I sell on eBay goes toward paying down my credit card balances. The Christmas bonus, that always goes toward the kids’ college funds. (See what a responsible parent I am?) The tax refund comes in April or May, depending on when I file: there are no holidays around then, so that’s “fun money”.* And if I win on my first hand of blackjack, then I’m playing on the house’s dime.

Dollars are dollars. It doesn’t matter where they originate from. Understanding this is fundamental to getting out of the wrong mindset, the one that leads to making atrocious decisions.

Let’s assume that you’ve reached the level of awareness where you’re not submerged in credit card debt, but you still think there’s some difference between money you sweated for and money that fell in your lap. This is how the poor and unambitious think.

It’s fine to earmark funds, of course. Doing so is the very purpose of budgeting, and budgeting is the primary way you save for and eventually purchase things that you can’t immediately pay for out of discretionary income. But you earmark money contingent on where it’s going, not where it came from.

Each dollar is an opportunity, or at least that’s how rich and self-determined people seem to think. Every trite rags-to-riches story about the poor European kid coming to America with a $10 bill in one pocket and an onion in the other (to ward off evil spirits, and to eat) has something in common: every stroke of fortune played off the previous ones in the series. Andrew Carnegie spent the first 13 years of his life dirt-poor in Scotland. 5 years later, Carnegie’s mother took out a 2nd mortgage on the family home because his boss at the Pennsylvania Railroad recommended an investment opportunity. Once it paid off Carnegie had a choice, conditional on his mindset about the origins of money:

  • Fly to Vegas and rent a penthouse suite at the Palms, or maybe that one suite that has a basketball court. After all, this was found money, beyond what he was earning as a division superintendent.
  • Reinvest the proceeds, and/or look for the next investment.

Say Carnegie believed that salaries are for investing, and “found money” is for other outlays. He’d have worked until death, going to church every Sunday, and maybe left a few dollars for his kids. Instead he became not just one of the richest men who ever lived, but one of history’s greatest philanthropists, too. This is at least partially because he understood that if he had to wait for his salary to enable him to make investments, he’d still be waiting. By the way, he’d be 176 years old today.

Less insightful people routinely fall into the trap of believing that money differs depending on where it came from. Don’t be like them. Treat the Christmas bonus for what it is. It isn’t $4000 that fell from the sky. It’s $4000 that your boss held onto all year long, enjoying interest payments on (not to mention the similar interest payments he enjoyed from all your co-workers’ bonuses.) What if you’d received the bonus in 26 equal payments throughout the year, added seamlessly to each of your paychecks, increasing the difference between your revenue and expenses and giving you more to invest with, all the more quickly?

If you’re like most people, you’d complain that your miserly boss didn’t give you a bonus this year.

*You should never get a tax refund. See Chapter IX for the reasons.

 

 

The 25th Through 28th Ways Rich People Think Differently

 

Don’t just laugh at this. Wear it to your next job interview if you want to avoid being average.

 

You’re not going to understand this unless you read Wednesday’s post.

Rich people know that if you have “something to fall back on”, you’ll fall back.

“Your dream is to perform on Broadway? Good for you. But finish that political science degree, so you’ll have something to fall back on.”

Not to delve into the semantics of this, but think about the expression “fall back”, and its antonym. You’re making allowances for your own eventual failure, or regression, and practically expecting it.

This doesn’t mean that rich people follow their dreams without thinking about worst-case scenarios. It means that rich people don’t even think in terms of “dream achievement” vs. “safe harbor”.

Making subsistence money is not hard to do. (Besides, in the estimation of noted average person Trent Hamm, making more than $25,000 a year barely makes you any happier at all.) But when you do so while in a fallback position, like when you’re using a teaching certificate that you never wanted in the first place, it paradoxically makes it harder to walk away and do something more ambitious. “I put all this time and effort into getting my teaching credential, I might as well use it. Even though I hate everything about the job. Although I suppose I could convince myself that I don’t.”

Finding your passion isn’t just self-help blather. It’s Ricardo’s Law of Comparative Advantage in action. Do what you’re good at, and not just you but the rest of society will benefit. Or just be miserable and do something you hate. What do we care? It’s your life, not ours.

 

Rich people could absolutely give a damn about being ostentatious. Average people want you to notice and thus validate them.

Jewelry? Seriously, what’s the point?

Rims? You can’t even admire them, because you’re inside the freaking car.

Bottle service? Okay, now you’re just screwing with us. You clearly hate money if you’re paying $300 to have a waitress come to your table and make drinks for you. 

What are you talking about? Rich people love to spend money on expensive things. You’re telling me rich people don’t own private jets, etc.? What about Donald Trump?

Slow down, average person.

First of all, Donald Trump isn’t a rich person so much as he is a guy who’s created a character of a rich person that he uses to great effect. The showiness is intrinsic to his celebrity, and frees him from the ignominy of being just another faceless New York real estate tycoon. The outrageous statements, the speculative presidential runs, even the hair: it’s all part of the act.

Take a more ordinary rich person, one of typical rich-person showiness. Warren Buffett doesn’t own a Bombardier Challenger 600 so he can be lavish. (That’s Floyd Mayweather’s thing, and God knows how badly that will end.) Warren Buffett’s time is worth a lot. He isn’t doing anybody any good, himself nor anyone else, by getting to Eppley Airfield 2 hours before a scheduled flight to Denver so he can stand in the TSA line removing his shoes and emptying his pockets while eating a Cinnabon. Better he get where he’s going as fast as possible, move some more assets to higher-valued uses as he does, and get back home. Buffett owning a jet is the equivalent of you owning a car. Or would you prefer taking a bus to work, moving only at the whim of the bus scheduler, and running your errands and going to your kids’ soccer practice without autonomy?

Rich people spend money with the end in mind. They spend for a tangible purpose that more often than not will pay dividends. It’s not “How much will this jet cost me?” It’s “How much will this jet enrich me?” When Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger fly out to Vegas to spend the night dancing and imbibing at Marquee, you can bet they go to the bar and order their own drinks like normal people like rich people.

 

Rich people see money as a vehicle, not a destination.

The standard axiom is to contrast “journey” with destination, but that doesn’t serve our purposes. Here’s the message of this entire series, reduced to a single example:

Average person:

Can I afford this vacation? I have $x in my savings account.

Rich person:

Can I afford this vacation? My monthly passive cash flow is $x beyond my living and other mandatory expenses.

 

We used x because the numbers themselves aren’t as important as the observations. In fact, the observations are even more important than whether the person in question can afford the vacation. The responsible average person, who determines that yes, she can, isn’t philosophically different than the irresponsible average person who just whips out her credit card and doesn’t think about how she’ll have to pay the minimum balance for the next 30 years. At best, an average person sees an indulgent expense as something to justify – a tradeoff. Enjoy it now, but it’ll cost you later.

A rich person sees an indulgent expense as something to pay for out of money coming in, rather than out of money sitting stagnant. Obviously, paying for a vacation requires anyone to economize a little. But a rich person thinks about how doing so will reduce his cash flow for a fixed period. An average person thinks about how doing so will reduce his net worth.

Cash flow and net worth. Both are important, but the former is a better indicator of what you can afford in the short term. A rich person wouldn’t take on a frivolous expense that would cut into net worth, or even think in terms of doing so. An average person either doesn’t think about cash flow, or doesn’t have large enough cash flow to warrant said expenses.

Some people read this and grasp it immediately, others don’t. Cash flow is just that, flow. Money coming in. Money goes out too, but the idea is for cash flow to be net positive. The cash flow becomes the more important measurement for determining your ability to buy things, mainly because net positive cash flow, by definition, will always increase your net worth. A rich person knows his net worth is increasing just by looking at his cash flow. He doesn’t even need to look at the net worth.

So a rich person looking to indulge himself doesn’t think about saving and scrimping for the indulgence. He thinks about that money coming out of cash flow instead, which will temporarily lower the flow. He doesn’t think “I’ll have to spend x% of my net worth on this vacation.” He thinks, “I’ll have to spend y days worth of cash flow on this vacation.” When he returns, and no longer has a vacation to pay for, the cash flow picks up where it left off. As if nothing ever happened. Meanwhile, the average person thinks about how to get back to his previous level of wealth.

 

Rich people aren’t waiting for Daddy to make things all better, average people are.

Finally, and excuse us for quoting ourselves, rich people buy assets and sell liabilities. Average people buy liabilities and sell (or at least, fail to buy) assets. They aren’t blowing hundreds a month on ways to deaden the pain of their unfulfilling lives, get their buzz on, buy Marlboro Lights by the carton because it saves money, I do it because it relaxes me or whatever. Instead, even spending that money on something as mundane as an increased 401(k) contribution will help free you from the miasma of averageness.

That’s the biggest difference between rich and average people, right there. It dwarfs most of the others, which are largely about thought rather than activity. Again, this stuff is unbelievably simple to comprehend, and not all that much harder to act upon. Amazingly, actually making up your mind to embrace it is the hardest part for most people.

 

Your Fund Isn’t Killing You, But It Isn’t Helping Either

A parade of fund managers, showing both their eclectic viewpoints and love of the United States and its capitalist system

Last month we claimed that the same stocks are often held by the same funds. But we didn’t back it up with any data.

Lipper is the go-to company for fund research. This is their list of the largest mutual funds by net assets. Let’s walk through the relevant abbreviations and codes.

The 3rd column lists the funds’ objectives.

IID is intermediate investment-grade debt. “Intermediate” refers to the length of the debt, 5 to 10 years.

SPSP means the fund is supposed to replicate what the S&P 500 does.

MLCE is multi-cap core funds. “Multi-cap” means the fund invests in a range of market capitalization sizes; everything from giant companies to small ones, with no more than ¾ of its value in any one size. If you want that size quantified, well, you’re asking too many questions. (That’s not a copout. We seriously couldn’t find a formal definition.)

CMP is commodities precious metals, which means not just physical gold and silver, etc., but their corresponding derivatives.

MLGE is multi-cap growth funds. Same as MLCE, except MLGE funds invest in stocks with above-average price-to-earnings ratios, price-to-book ratios and 3-year sales-per-share growth value.

We’ll spare you the rest of them – if you want the details, they’re here – but now we’ve got 3 categories (SPSP, MLCE and MLGE) that specialize in equities, as opposed to debt or commodities.

Here are the biggest holdings of the SPDR S&P 500, the largest S&P 500 replicator:

Apple 4.66
Exxon Mobil 3.26
Microsoft 1.81
IBM 1.76
General Electric 1.72
AT&T 1.71
Chevron 1.71
Johnson & Johnson 1.54
Wells Fargo 1.46
Coca-Cola 1.44

Here are the largest of the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, the largest multi-cap core fund and one whose very summary says it’s “designed to provide investors with exposure to the entire U.S. equity market, including small-, mid-, and large-cap growth and value stocks.”

1

Apple

2

Exxon Mobil

3

Microsoft

4

IBM

5

AT&T

6

General Electric

7

Chevron

8

Procter & Gamble

9

Johnson & Johnson

10

Pfizer

Wow, what tremendous diversity. Did you notice how although the two funds’ 1st– through 4th– and 7th-largest components are the same companies in the same order, the one fund’s 5th-biggest component is AT&T and 6th-biggest is GE, while the other’s 6th-biggest is AT&T and 5th-biggest is GE? It’s like they’re from different galaxies!

Finally the Fidelity Contrafund, the biggest multi-cap growth fund. It holds the stocks of, according to Fidelity, “companies whose value (we believe) is not fully recognized by the public.

APPLE
GOOGLE
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
MCDONALDS
COCA-COLA
WELLS FARGO
NOBLE ENERGY
TJX COMPANIES
WALT DISNEY
NIKE

 

Apple’s value could not be more recognized by the public if the company tattooed its logo on every citizen’s forehead. Same with Google. The only Contrafund major component that you might not have heard of is Noble Energy, a $7 billion oil and gas driller based out of Houston.

Funds make their full holding data difficult to access. Contrafund has 413 components (which is nothing compared to the Vanguard fund, which has 3220 components.) The Fidelity fund’s components are listed here. We can’t put an image in the site, it’d run for way too many columns, but here’s a summary:

Microsoft is 50th on the list. The Contrafund’s 2nd-biggest component, Google, is 13th on the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund list while Berkshire Hathaway is 36th, McDonald’s is 25th, Coca-Cola is 15th, Wells Fargo is 11th and Disney is 33rd.

It doesn’t matter whether you do business with Fidelity, with Vanguard, with American Funds or with PIMCO. Buy a mutual fund, at least one that deals in equities, and you’re paying a fund manager to say “Hmm…this Apple looks like a good buy. I think I’ll pick some up.”

Look, this isn’t necessarily an argument for you to stop whatever your occupation is and devote the requisite hours to becoming an amateur fund manager. Whatever motivates you. Rather, we’re asking you to acknowledge that “picking” hundreds of stocks en masse barely counts as picking. Choosing the stocks of the largest, most profitable, most widely held companies doesn’t take any special aptitude or knowledge. It’s a defensive measure, done purely out of the fund manager’s self-interest. He’s thinking:

I’m 20-something. I’m making ridiculous money, way out of proportion to the value I’m creating. Women are enamored of me, or at least of what I can buy. Should I actually do some research, look for nothing but undervalued stocks (which there won’t be 413 of, at least not simultaneously), sell all of my fund’s current components and buy those instead?

Of course not. The higher-ups wouldn’t have it. They’d have me, roasting on a spit. My job isn’t to provide the highest possible returns. It’s to avoid mistakes.

Understand that there is no room for outliers nor independent thinkers among the ranks of the major fund managers. The managers’ job is to be as conservative as possible. Which means your money is going to be treated conservatively, which means little chance for legitimately large appreciation. When a fund hits big returns, it’s an accident. Yes, there’s a top-performing fund, and a top 10 list. Every year and every quarter. There has to be. Someone’s got to be at the top. Whether the SPDR S&P 500 outperforms the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund thus reduces to little more than the question of whether AT&T will outperform GE.

You can do better than this. You can also do worse, but we’re talking to the ambitious among you.

Synthesizing the classical proverb with Mark Twain’s updating of it, “Put your eggs in a few baskets. And watch those baskets.” You need to buy individual stocks. You can start by reading here.