The Wealthy Really Are Better Than You

Better than you. Better-looking, too, if you're Henry Waxman.

Sooner or later, every website with a passing interest in personal finance posts some version of “The X Habits of Wealthy People”. You know how these lists are going to end before they start. Yeah, rich folks spend less than they earn and don’t drive ostentatious cars. Great, what else you got?

First, that’s not even true. Just because Warren Buffett inexplicably lives in a 53-year old house doesn’t mean that Larry Ellison or Paul Allen does. Despite what you’ve been told, frugality is only a tiny part of this. (But frugality is also the easiest personal finance subtopic to write about, which is why right now some idiot personal finance blogger is crafting a post on how you can save .1¢ per wipe if you buy toilet paper by the ton.)

A note on frugality: when I was 14, my best friend’s father was a successful eyeglass salesman. Regional sales manager, or something. Knowing I’d be entering the workforce soon, and wondering what I’d have to do to beat out the other applicants for that first coveted busboy position, I asked him what he looked for when hiring. His answer?

“Big spenders. I want a guy who orders the lobster and the most expensive bottle of wine, who wears Harry Rosen suits and drives a BMW.”

Why?

“Because he’ll be motivated. He’s got bills to pay and a lifestyle to maintain, so he has to make his quotas whether he wants to or not.”

There are plenty of people who spend less than they earn and who drive Ford Tauri. The vast majority of them aren’t rich.

If you’re not rich, and see no prospects of ever becoming rich, it’s not because you aren’t working hard enough. This should be obvious. Even if you cut out early every afternoon and only work 35 hours a week, how many hours a week do you think the world’s hardest-working rich person is putting in? 350? 35,000? No, clearly the relationship between hours put in and rewards achieved is not a direct one. Or at least not a linear one.
Here’s what rich people do that really does distinguish them from ordinary folk. These are easy to adopt, and don’t even require you to sacrifice that much in the short term, if at all. You just need to think differently.

1. They understand leverage. And its offspring, passive income. There’s an entire generation of financially responsible but unimaginative people who blame the Great Depression for their failure to lead dynamic lives, and who took the mantra “neither a borrower nor a lender be” as Scripture. (It’s actually Shakespeare. Hamlet.) Fortunately, those people are dying off.

Spend money to make money. And borrow it, too. You borrow money to leverage your existing assets. You don’t borrow money to finance a vacation. A 6% commercial bank loan to purchase an office building, whose offices you then lease out to tenants, who make rent payments to you that a) you use to cover your mortgage payments and b) write off your taxes, while you keep the difference, is money well borrowed. An unimaginative frugal person who doesn’t know any better sees that original bank loan as a sleeping tiger. A rich person sees it as the first step to a sustained cash flow.

2. Rich people aren’t “being lived”. As opposed to living. No wealthy person beseeches anyone for a raise. Or does the prep work, explaining his worth to the company and why he’s entitled to more. Being rich starts with the self-determination, as counterintuitive and pollyanaish as that sounds.

The thing is, you probably know this instinctively. Who’s more likely to get rich:

a) The college-educated junior account coordinator who stays late and delivers her sales reports to the boss a day early, hoping to get noticed to the point where she can become an account executive one day and do more of the same, or
b) The immigrant with a shaky command of English who borrows from his cousin to open a falafel stand?

The first couple of years, their incomes might not differ by much. The immigrant might even work longer hours. But his success is contingent on him, and no one else. So is his failure, if any. No one can promote him, but no one can fire him. The point isn’t that all immigrant food vendors get rich. The point is that by living self-determined lives, they’re in a better position to create wealth than the junior account coordinator who’s waiting for the person above her to transfer/get fired/have a baby.

If a rich person wants more money, he creates it. By soliciting another client. By creating and promoting another product. By using another passive income stream. Not by hoping to catch the boss during one of his rare generous moods.

3. They care about output, not input. See our prior post about this.

It doesn’t matter how many hours you worked, it matter how many widgets you created. In fact, it doesn’t even matter how many widgets you created, it matters how much revenue they brought in. And even that is less important than how much profit they generated. (And if you don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit, buy the freaking book already.)

Or take the office building example from above. Once you get enough good tenants in there to fill it, the money starts flowing in with marginal effort. If Tim Cook flies to Helsinki for a ski trip next week instead of going to work, a few thousand iPads are still going to be sold. But the employee who relies on income for sustenance has to apply himself for every dollar. Which brings us to:

4. Wealth ≠ income. Not even close. There’s a reason why the ultra-rich usually keep quiet when Congress discusses raising tax rates on high-income people. Because confiscating more and more of a hard-working person’s income has little bearing on a rich person’s ability to build wealth. Capital gains, IRA proceeds, investment appreciation…whatever its name, money that they don’t directly work for is what separates the rich from the never-will-be.

5. Dust yourself off. Even if you don’t pick up as many clients as you like, or go half a day without having to open the register, a wealthy-person-in-training has a permanent internal motivator; memories of how badly life sucked taking orders at the old job.

6. (Of course) Buy assets, sell liabilities. Put $150 a month in an IRA, or put it in cigarettes by the carton?

**Best Article of the Week in the 121st Edition of the Best of Money Carnival**

Too big to fail. Too small to succeed.

A new adjective to describe the size of our government: gynecomastic.

Stock recommendation coming. But first, a rationale.

You might have noticed that there’s no disclaimer on ControlYourCash.com, the absence of which is yet another feature that sets us apart from almost every other personal finance blog.

There are at least 2 reasons for this. We never included a disclaimer because if you’re stupid enough to lose money on an investment just because we recommended it, that’s your problem, not ours, and we’re willing to argue that in a court of law should it come to that.

We hate the very fact that we had to mention that, which indirectly explains our other reason for the lack of a disclaimer. If we were to act out of defensiveness, submitting to the framework devised by the lawyers who run our nation, that would make us complicit in the problem. It’s the same reason why every time either of us checks into a hotel room, the first thing we do is take a pair of nail clippers and remove that sticker on the blow dryer that tells you not to immerse it in water. Along with the smaller sticker that proclaims that the state of California has determined that the cord is poisonous, therefore you should wash your hands after using it. That we’ve attributed the power of reason to a fictitious political entity, and that most people don’t seem to notice or mind, augurs horribly for the future of a nation in decline and an ostensibly free people.

So here’s the aforementioned stock recommendation. Well, more of an industry class recommendation. Stay the hell away from community banks and invest in the big ones. Because not only are the latter “too big to fail”, but their being too big to fail necessitates that the former must be too small to succeed.

Main Street Bank is, soon to be was, a small commercial and personal lender in the suburbs of Houston. Main Street is a modest little $45 million business (modest as bank sizes go) that’s about to go out of business.

The company’s financials are fine. It’s not being swallowed by a corporate raider and chopped up asset by asset. It didn’t lend more than it could afford to, nor is it the victim of executive malfeasance.

Does Main Street have a lot of bad loans? No. Main Street’s default rate is 31% below average. (That is, better than average, because defaults are bad and you want the numbers to be low.)

Main Street’s business largely consists of lending money to independent businesspeople who use the loans to buy equipment. The equipment ideally enables them to sell more of whatever it is they sell, or do so more efficiently, thus resulting in increased profits, which means the bank gets its loans paid back and everyone’s more successful than they were before the arrangement began.

Unless, of course, the federal government orders Main Street to stop lending so much. Not unlike the absurd CAFE standards for fuel economy, the government has decided what Main Street’s portfolio should consist of. 90% of Main Street’s loans go out to small businesses. The feds have determined that 70% of that outstanding money ought to be loaned out elsewhere.

Title IX is a federal mandate that require colleges to offer as many women’s sports as they do men’s. Ignoring that men like sports more than women do, the inevitable result is that most colleges just end up dropping enough men’s programs to get the numbers to match. In much the same way, Main Street honored the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s orders by lending out less money. One fewer lender in the neighborhood means less choice for the suburban Houston small-business owner, which means the remaining lenders can raise rates and high-five over the handicapping of a competitor. Meanwhile, Citibank not only could “borrow” $45 billion from taxpayers, but practically had that loan forced on it by a complicit executive branch.

If you’re an investor, what are you going to invest in? Main Street was closely held by its founders and not open to independent shareholders, but the principle is the same for dozens of other banks. Given the choice between a bank ordered to shrink by the federal government, and another one ordered to grow by same, an investment in which has bigger potential?

Main Street’s CEO put it best:

“The regulatory environment makes it very difficult to do what we do.”

First, again we’re attributing human failures to institutions. It’s the regulators, actual people in the employ of the government, who are making it difficult for Main Street Bank to accept deposits and lend out money. And ultimately forced it to return its banking charter.
Given how many politicians of both parties have uninspiringly described the ongoing interminable financial crisis as benefiting “Wall Street over Main Street”, well, today’s story about a dying bank is ironic on a level that even a congressman should be able to understand.

Thanks to Robin Sidel of The Wall Street Journal for basically doing all the prep for us.

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance #323-Better Late than Never Edition**

The Easiest Money You’ll Ever Make

Here’s what you need:

1. 20% of the price of a house, condo or townhome.
2. A few months’ worth of patience.

Welcome to the lucrative world of lease options. They’re a way to increase your wealth with almost zero downside.

Lease-option holder. Still, you probably want one who uses a bottle opener

A lease option involves you buying a second home, renting it out, and giving the tenant the choice (or “option”, if you will) of buying the home once the lease expires. What makes the lease option so wonderful for the average landlord – correspondingly less so for the average tenant – is that you can charge above-market rates throughout the lease. After all, you’re doing the tenant the favor of letting her own the house after a year (or whichever term) expires. It’s like a layaway plan for what the hackneyed expression calls “the biggest investment you’ll ever make.” You let your tenant lock in a price for the house, essentially saying “You can buy the house for $x a year from now, regardless of what the market does. What’s a better deal than that?”

Meh…I don’t know. I’d have to charge an awful lot more than market rents to make it worth my while, if I’m going to have to surrender the asset within a year.

First, kudos for understanding that the house in question is an asset, and can help you grow your wealth regardless of what market conditions are doing.

My pleasure. You do realize that I’m not an actual person, and merely a device of your own creation that you use to clarify your thoughts, right? You’re talking to yourself.

Anyhow, you can typically charge at least 10% above market rent on a lease option. But that’s not really important. What’s important is this:

Most tenants never pick up the option. When the time comes for them to exercise it, it turns out they didn’t spend the previous year saving the requisite cash for a down payment. That’s one reason why they’re renting instead of owning in the first place. Renters, by and large, aren’t as bright as landlords. (Hopefully the smart-but-sensitive renters reading this can comprehend the phrase “by and large”.)

A lease option is similar to stock options, or commodity futures – you’re assuming market risk for the tenant. Real estate prices might rise 50% in the next year, but you’re offering the tenant a chance to lock in a price today. If your $100,000 house ends up being worth $150,000 a year from now, you, the landlord, will have forgone $50,000.

Of course prices could fall, too. Should they, even by just 1%, you’re protected. Obviously your tenant isn’t going to exercise an option to buy a $99,000 house for $100,000. Which means free money for you: you just received a year’s worth of premium rent payments that went well beyond covering your mortgage payments. That’s the ultimate hedge against a declining real estate market.

And if the market rises, rather than declines, you as the landlord still won’t necessarily get screwed. Again, the typical tenant doesn’t plan far ahead enough to take advantage of the lease-option. If the house does indeed rise in value 50%, and theoretically turns into an immediate $50,000 bonus for your tenant, she still needs to exercise the option. That isn’t easy. For an FHA loan, she’d need to put down 3 1/2% to buy the house from you. If she can’t put the necessary down payment on the house together once the lease expires, her opportunity will disappear and she’ll be back where she started, with no equity in a home and a rent payment due at the end of the month. (Actually, the tenant will be several steps behind where she started; now with 12 months of rent payments gone forever.)

Let’s see how this works in practice.

Say you buy a $100,000 house with 20% down. We’re assuming 20%, so you won’t have to pay mortgage insurance. At current 30-year fixed mortgage rates of 4 1/2%, that means you’d be making monthly payments of $405.35. You find a tenant who wants to own a home one day, and offer her a lease-option. Once you do, there are two ways you can do this.

Get the lease-option money up front, or
Spread it over the course of the lease.

Let’s assume a 1-year lease, and that fair-market rent is $450 a month. That’s what you’d charge an ordinary tenant who has no intention of buying the place. That ordinary tenant would pay $900 up front (1st month’s rent + security deposit).

With a lease option, you could ask for an extra $450 payment up front, and let the security deposit apply to the down payment if the tenant exercises the option (which she probably won’t.) Now you get a total of $1350 up front, $450 of which the tenant will never see again, after a year expires and she’s nowhere near amassing the down payment that would guarantee her the house.

Or instead of getting an additional $450 up front, you could just raise the monthly rent. Using our rule of thumb from above, of charging a 10% premium, that means you’d collect monthly rent payments of $495. Now you’re getting an extra $89.65 a month (the difference between the rent you collect and your mortgage payment) simply for getting the tenant to sign one additional piece of paper. Even better, your lease-option tenant is going to be a little more motivated than the average tenant to keep the place looking nice and in good repair. After all, the lease-option tenant hopes to own the place, and relatively shortly.

By the way, that $45 premium applies to the option only. Technically, it’s not even part of the rent even though you’re collecting it every month. If the tenant doesn’t exercise the option, you keep the premium payments.

Imagine test-driving a car for a year, and paying for the privilege.

Again, like in any deal, you’ve got to look at the potential downside: the tenant might be one of the responsible few who actually exercises the option. In this unlikely case, at the end of the lease you’d refund the tenant $990 (or $900, if we’re using our initial scenario of getting the lease-option money up front.) Now the tenant only has to scrounge up $2,510 (or $2,600) to take title of the house under an FHA loan. And she’d still have to make prohibitive mortgage insurance payments. Or she could put 20% down and avoid mortgage insurance, which means she’d need to have saved $19,010 (or $19,100.) As if.

And even if that does happen, you’ve still got a year’s worth of above-market profits to show for it. Plus, you won’t be obligated to your mortgage lender for the next 29 years. Theoretically you could buy another house and do the same thing again. Remember, the tenant is only going to exercise the option if she has a) sufficient fiscal discipline to sock away money for a year, but b) so little fiscal discipline that she’s renting instead of owning in the first place. That’s a tiny, tiny area of overlap.

Wednesday, Part II of how to steal make money with a lease-option.

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Wealth #48**

**This article is featured in the Totally Money Blog Carnival-It’s So Hot Edition**