Programmed to receive

Felder’s on the right, the golden parachute on his back obscured by a knife

 

Three years after its release, your humble blogger recently read Heaven & Hell, the tell-all book by Don Felder. He’s the guitarist who joined the Eagles in 1974 and left amid a flurry of lawsuits 27 years later. If you’re familiar with the band’s story, you can skip the next paragraph.

After the Eagles had released two albums, Felder joined, making the band a quintet. They weren’t yet the icons they are now, and the original members gladly made Felder a full partner in the corporation they’d created to conduct business under. (After all, he was now going to be on the hook for 20% of the expenses.) Within 3 years two of those original members had quit, each returning his shares and ultimately turning Felder into a 33% partner.

Felder owned one-third of the most lucrative undertaking in the history of popular music. When the Eagles resumed after a 14-year layoff, they packed stadia around the world and charged fans historically high prices for the privilege of seeing their soft-rock favorites performed without any showmanship or pyrotechnics getting in the way. The tour brought in an estimated quarter-billion dollars, with relatively little overhead. There was no stage show to speak of, and expenses beyond the usual (travel, food) largely consisted of paying the side musicians. On top of that, the band members claimed to have sobered up – even Joe Walsh – which can easily turn red into black.

Fans were clamoring for another album. You know, to complement that copy of the Eagles Greatest Hits that every sentient being in the universe owns. (Biggest album in music history. Septenvigenuple platinum.)

The Eagles’ disagreements were already legendary, and had led to their breakup and the hiatus that lasted considerably longer than the band had been together. But decades later, when the money headed for the exosphere, the bickering reached critical mass. The two other partners “dismissed” Felder, because “squeezing him out to split the money fewer ways” sounded even less charitable.

One problem: the corporation. A limited-liability entity that protects its members’ interests, including that of one Donald William Felder. The other principals – Don Henley and Glenn Frey – obviously had the right to decide whom they wanted to play and record with. That’s not the issue. If Felder had been an employee (like longstanding Eagles Walsh and Timothy B. Schmit), he’d have been shown the door like most of us have at some point, asked to return his parking pass and given a 2-week severance check if he was lucky.

But Felder fought back in his capacity as a shareholder. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, the details of which of course have never been publicly disclosed, but we do know the litigants’ arguments. First, for the defense:

  • Henley and Frey felt they were entitled to larger shares, given their disproportionate contributions. They wrote and sang the vast majority of the songs. Felder wrote only a half-dozen and sang only one (which still made him more prolific than the two remaining members.)
  • Only Henley and Frey were there from the start.
  • Felder’s departure was unanimous. No one who matters wanted him there – neither of the other partners, neither of the non-partner band members, nor their longtime manager.

And from the plaintiff:

  • Felder wrote the band’s biggest hit, “Hotel California”.
  • To any true fan of the band, he was an inextricable part of it. Imagine Mount Rushmore without Jefferson. (Alright, that’s grandiose. Imagine Stone Mountain without Robert E. Lee.)
  • There’s more to a band than singing and writing songs. The contributions of a lead guitarist are not meaningless nor irrelevant.

And the only argument that matters in the eyes of corporate law:

  • If the remaining members wanted to tour and record under their valuable trademarked name, with or without Felder, he was entitled to a cut. Ideally, he should contribute something in order to enjoy a share of the profits, but if the other partners unilaterally refuse his contributions, they can’t subsequently deny him his take.

It didn’t matter whether everyone in the universe wanted Felder out of the band. They had formed a corporation. He was a shareholder, and a significant one. You can’t simply strong-arm shareholders out because of personal or professional differences. (Unless the corporation is General Motors, and the President of the United States is the one doing the strong-arming, but that’s a post for a different time.)

 The parties settled, with Felder selling back his interest. He got his, however much that might be. Whatever the amount, it was clearly large enough to keep him happy while small enough to make it worth the newly truncated Eagles’ while to continue as a band. (Then again, maybe they’re continuing to tour because they need to make enough to pay Felder off.) The Eagles released an album without him, which reached #1 everywhere from India to Russia to Greece and sold the equivalent of 7 million copies. (Which might even be more impressive today than selling 27 million albums was back in the ‘70s.)

Okay, captivating story, but how does rock stars fighting over riches pertain to you?

Felder was smart enough, or fortunate enough, to have become a business owner, rather than a well-compensated employee. (Either that, or he had someone smart enough on his side during initial negotiations.) That means:

  • His financial rewards weren’t tied to his labor.
  • He could enjoy residual profits. The “Hotel California” royalty checks continued long after he recorded the guitar parts for that particular song.
  • He was protected against losses, should there have been any. He was only on the hook for his original contribution to the corporation, which, when he became a shareholder back in 1974, was negligible.
  • He had a say in the workings of the corporation. Future profits (or losses) were linked to his (and the other owners’) decisions.

Contrast that with the fates of Walsh and Schmit, who remain salaried employees, no different than the roadies or the bus drivers. These guys have been famous rock stars for decades, yet they’re still obligated to The Man. They work at their bosses’ whim, and gain no incremental advantage if the corporation succeeds beyond projections.

Sure, their paychecks are somewhat guaranteed, while the owners risk losses. But the chance of business owners losing money on a proven successful venture is minimal. And, should the money suddenly evaporate and a business no longer be feasible, the first things cut from the budget will always be…employees.

If you’re operating a business, you owe it to yourself to incorporate. If you’re an exceedingly valuable employee and you know it, you owe it to yourself to want a piece or threaten to walk to a competitor who’ll give you one. There should be no loyalty in the employee/employer relationship, only honor. Work hard if you’re an employee, make sure the checks clear if you’re an employer. Any perceived obligation beyond that is 21st century slavery.

 **This article is featured in the Independence Day Totally Money Carnival**

It’s REITcycle Friday!

What do Howard Stern and Control Your Cash have in common? Every Friday, we mail it in. Welcome to The Best Of, a/k/a Recycle Friday. In which we take a guest post we wrote a long time ago and see how it stacks up now. With annotations, if necessary. Today’s post about real estate investment trusts – “buildings in baskets”, as they’re called – originally ran on LenPenzo.com. It’s more informative than timely, and it appears that we don’t have to change a thing.

“You can’t make money in real estate these days. It’s impossible.”

Of course you can. The market isn’t “bad” – no market for any worthwhile commodity is either unequivocally good or bad. Real estate, whether raw land or fully improved buildings, obviously has a function and will continue to. Real estate, in and of itself, is not subject to obsolescence. You know, like ambergris or Pets.com stock.

As long as people enjoy living, working and shopping on the earth’s surface, real estate in general will remain a handsome investment for somebody. At least until we figure out levitation, which could be months away.

But public perception clouds everything. One staple of the local news over the last 18 months has been the sympathetic journalist interviewing the poor unfortunate who ended up in foreclosure, because he was mystified that adjustable-rate mortgages and fixed-rate mortgages are different things. So the population at large remains convinced that behind every real estate investment is an unscrupulous lender just waiting to take some nitroglycerin and a match to your life’s savings.

Two things:

a) Read the contract. There’s a reason why although millions of mortgage holders owe more money on their houses than they’re worth, no lender has yet been forced to offer restitution to a gullible homeowner: because mortgage contracts are airtight. Instead, to appease an angry and idiotic public the government has taken to making changes by fiat.

b) If that’s how you feel, why not be on the other side of the transaction?

Yeah, me. A real estate baron. Okay.

That’s exactly what we’re talking about. Via a handy creation called a Real Estate Investment Trust (the acronym is pronounced “reet”, as in the final syllable of “discreet”).

It operates on the same principle as a mutual fund – a fund manager creates an investment out of disparate pieces of other, more basic investments. In the case of a mutual fund, that means companies’ stocks, accumulated in differing proportions and sold to you and me in easily digestible chunks costing as little as $250. In the case of a REIT, a fund manager puts together real estate investments and lets you buy in.

This is not some new development. REITs have been around for 50 years. If you have a 401(k), there’s about a 4-to-1 chance that you’re investing in one right now and don’t even realize it. (Wait, you mean you’re one of the people who actually researches to determine what’s in his 401[k]? Congratulations. Gold star for you.)

So with a REIT, I’m buying little pieces of all my neighbors’ houses?

Doubtful. Not quite. Particular REITs specialize in different market segments. For instance, some focus on industrial sites only – factories, warehouses and their ilk.  Others invest solely in what are euphemistically called “entry-level” homes – mobile homes and starter apartment complexes. Some REITs even concentrate in market segments as arcane as storage facilities or medical buildings. (I’d link to examples of each one, but that means I’d run the risk of one of you investing his entire net worth in a particular REIT, losing every penny, then suing Len and me for making the hyperlink so tempting and easy to click on. It’s much easier to paint that scenario than to write an appropriately worded disclaimer.)

REITs even trade publicly, just like the mutual fund that comprises your 401(k) probably does. But unlike stocks and mutual funds, of which there are myriads upon myriads, REITs are less plentiful. Only about 200 REITs trade on the NYSE and NASDAQ boards, making REITs fairly easy to keep track of. There they are, on the ticker, right next to the ordinary stock quotes and index figures.  There are a few private REITs as well, but they’re only for the extremely wealthy and the connected. Let’s just say that the people who buy into them aren’t reading about them here.

You know what a dividend is, right? An annual (or quarterly, or in rare cases monthly) cash payment that a company makes to its stockholders, just for owning the stock. Managers do this to make the stock more attractive compared to other stocks you might be thinking about buying: you can think of the dividend as just a consistent discount on the price of the stock.

Well, not only do many REITs offer dividends, the ones that do offer dividend yields about quadruple those of stocks that do. When you buy a REIT, ideally you’re more interested in receiving regular income payments than in watching your stock appreciate so much that you can cash out and spend the rest of your life floating in a pool and scarfing down bonbons.  REITs bottomed out last March: the index that measures their overall value (the Dow Jones Equity All REIT Index) fell 75% from its high of 2 years earlier. But since reaching its nadir, it’s more than doubled. Again, this isn’t about finding something undervalued and loading up on it – it’s about generating regular revenue while everyone around you complains about how the market is cruel and mean and why can’t my house be worth more just because I want it to?

**This article is featured in the Totally Money Blog Carnival #25-Start of Summer Edition**

Your Smart Car isn’t saving the world

Gas prices too high? Congress will solve the problem, by forcing those greedy car manufacturers (who are in bed with Big Oil, you know) to increase their average gas mileage.

 

 

 

This model of Hummer actually gets NEGATIVE miles per gallon.

Gas prices low? That means people with low-mileage cars will drive more than they otherwise would, polluting our rivers (I think. Rivers might have something to do with it. Okay, oceans then) and keeping us ever more dependent on foreign oil. Which means it’s time for some intervention. Like legislating higher gas mileage.

Gas prices at their historical average? Well, there’s probably something nefarious about that, too.

Let’s go to the helpful folks at AAA for some numbers. AAA, the organization that will replace your flat tire (something any human should be able to do), bring you gas (if you’re dumb enough to run out, which should be practically impossible), give you maps (obsolete c. 2007) and send that godawful monthly magazine with prissy stories about the charming new vineyard taking root (haw!) in Sonoma County. “They make a Cabernet that is to die for. Best enjoyed with roasted squab. Tastings and tours daily.”

Take most of what AAA says with skepticism – they’d have you believe that checking your email at a stoplight is the equivalent of driving over the double yellow with a Stolichnaya bottle balanced on your knee – but we’ll use their estimates.

They claim the average American drives 13,500 miles a year. Meanwhile, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards mandated by federal bureaucrats and legislators require the average passenger car get 30.2 miles per gallon.

(Why they don’t simply legislate that the average car get 10,000 miles per gallon, run on kitchen waste and not be allowed to get into accidents is anyone’s guess.)

Back in the real world, that 30.2 figure is for the current model year. Of course, most of us drive cars from previous years. The mandated average has been constant at 27.5 for the previous two decades, so it’s safe to use that as our bellwether.

That means, grossly simplifying things, that the average driver should use about 447 gallons a year. There are around 250 million cars in the U.S., so that’s 2.7 billion barrels of oil we use every year, you filthy mechanized polluter.

A couple of qualifiers, first being the absurdity of mandating technological “advancement”:

Miles per gallon is easy to measure. Other, more important characteristics of a vehicle – like its ability to withstand fires or protect its occupants in collisions – aren’t so simple to quantify. Nor are they the concern of the particular bureaucrats who implement CAFE standards. Our political betters are collectively self-aware enough to know that they can’t set standards for two disparate variables simultaneously – cars should have at least gas mileage x while having fire retardation y – but that doesn’t stop them from measuring the one variable and enforcing an arbitrary, largely unforceable minimum.

Setting that minimum is a politically palatable way of what can only be described as fixing the market. The result is that auto manufacturers are forbidden from selling as many of their low-mileage vehicles as buyers want. Instead, said manufacturers can only sell a given number relative to the number of high-mileage cars they can sell. Otherwise, the average gas mileage of the cars they sell would decrease. Simply because people, for whatever reason, like to buy cars that burn a lot of gas.

It should be obvious that it’s not the flagrant gas-burning that people like for its own sake.

Honda makes a powerful if unglamorous SUV (the Pilot) that’s strong enough to tow 4500 pounds and roomy enough to carry 87 cubic feet of cargo. Which necessitates it getting 18 miles a gallon. The CAFE standard for “light trucks” is 20.7 mpg, which means Honda has to sell enough 36-mile-a-gallon Civics to raise its corporate mpg average, regardless of what the car-buying public wants (or would want, without government functionaries forcing Honda to meet 3rd-party standards, rather than maximize profit.)

Average fuel economy standards are a joke, created by politicians of both parties to feel good about themselves. If Congress wanted to truly “reduce our dependence on foreign oil*”, they’d order us to drive motorcycles.

The sad part is that more than a few dumb voters nod their heads and reelect these idiots, confident that legislating science is a) possible and b) worthwhile.

When you’re looking at buying a car, obviously you should think about how much you’ll spend on gas. But don’t make it your only criterion. By the way, our book Control Your Cash: Making Money Make Sense devotes an entire chapter to it. Which you can download free.

*Apparently, it’s perfectly fine to depend on foreign food, manufactured goods, software, banking, and cobalt, though. Only oil is sacred.

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance #316-Family Edition**