Man of the Year

Bob enjoying his Man of the Year trophy (reenactment)

Lately, we’ve been guilty of accentuating the negative, poking fun at people who refuse to foster their money while not giving enough positive examples of what to do and who’s done it. This week, that changes. Sports Illustrated announces its Sportsman of the Year about a month in advance. Time names its Person of the Year around the same time, and as often as not awards it to multiple people, a symbolic person, or whomever happened to see the magazine on a newsstand.

At Control Your Cash, we actually wait until the earth completes its lap around the sun before handing out honors. And so, our inaugural Man of the Year: a person who exemplifies adopting the habits we’ve been trying to avail you of for the last few months. Anonymity precludes us giving our honoree’s full name, but here he is: Bob G., a 44-year old radio personality who lives in Las Vegas. For a decade, Bob worked for a particular station where he and a series of co-hosts did a morning show that was consistently both lucrative and popular. But because Bob works in the least rational industry in all of commerce, 2 years ago he was fired and replaced by a tardy borderline illiterate who commands half Bob’s salary. Even worse, Bob’s contract included a 6-month noncompete clause – the rationale presumably being that Bob is no longer talented enough to work for that employer, yet still so talented that he’d indirectly cost that employer money were he to work for a rival. You figure it out.

Even with a college degree (Wisconsin, communications, 1988), Bob was now rendered legally unemployable in his chosen field in the city he’d called home for most of his professional life. For most people placed in such a situation, the strategy would be simple:

  • Eat potato shavings while tallying the days until the noncompete expires;
  • Ask the wife to pull a double shift at the medical clinic;
  • Set fire to the credit rating;
  • Hop around the nation from medium-sized city to medium-sized city, a/k/a the transient career path of the doleful would-be radio star.

Instead, Bob descended to the figurative basement shelter and hooked up with a competing station shortly thereafter. Although he of course missed the $2,000 biweekly direct deposits, practically speaking, Bob and his household barely felt a breeze. Bob spent the previous decade contributing to his 401(k), automatically sending monthly payments without even thinking about it. He transferred it over to an IRA that’s now worth $165,000, and after getting fired set up a Roth IRA.* He also cut a regular monthly check to Vanguard, his mutual fund company. Today, that mutual fund is approaching $170,000. When the market dove, losing almost 40% of its value, Bob didn’t flinch. Instead, he took the drop in stocks as the buying opportunity it is, knowing they were bound to rebound. He started writing bigger checks, and watched his fund rise 30% over the year. And, while temporarily barred from earning income (yes, he signed a contract with draconian restrictions, but that’s another topic), Bob could at least reduce his expenses.

Except Bob barely had expenses to reduce. Credit card debt? Please. Bob carries a single MasterCard, using it for household expenses as a matter of course. He pays the balance in full every month, subscribing to the quaint notion that the price on the tag is what the buyer should pay. Bob would rather eat his groceries than spend years financing them.

Those household expenses aren’t particularly exorbitant, either. Dog food. Cable. An occasional night out with the fellas and a beer or two. A quarterly lovers’ junket to San Diego. Bob has yet to pay $300 for bottle service at a nightclub, and his next clothes-buying spree will be his first.

Bob, his gal pal “Susie” and their Rottweiler “Pinto” live in a house Bob bought new 7 years ago for $185,000. Even though Pinto’s had a health problem or two, his care runs about $800 a year, which is several times cheaper than a child would be. Bob caught the housing market before it exploded – which it did in Las Vegas in a more pronounced fashion than it did in most places. So was his home purchase a strategic decision, bought when it was bought because Bob predicted what market forces would soon do to the value of his property?

No, he bought because he needed a permanent place to live. He was tired of living in an apartment, wanted to build equity, and finally had a worthwhile partner to share his life (and expenses) with. Bob’s house shot up in value in the ensuing years, through no intrinsic reason. Buyers were just bidding prices up faster than builders could build, and Chez Bob went along for the ride. In theory, Bob’s functional house was worth $300,000 in early 2007. That fell as quickly as it rose. An identical house across the street sold 2 months ago for $172,000. Retroactively, it’d seem that early 2007 would have been the ideal time for Bob to have sold and enjoyed the $115,000 gain he’d spent 4 years building.

So did Bob cost himself $13,000 by buying when he did, instead of this past November? If he were a real estate investor with thousands of other options, maybe. But as a human who needs shelter, Bob made out just fine. Yes, his home depreciated. However:

  • He and his home still have plenty of years left. In Bob’s case, to live. In his house’s case, to regain value. There’s no such thing as a permanent price level of any kind. 
  • What was he supposed to do instead, keep renting an apartment? He still had to have lived somewhere. Say he found one for $850/month. Instead of being down $13,000, he’d have been down $71,400.

Bob’s built equity in the house. He deducts the mortgage interest payments from his annual tax bill. Oh, and that mortgage? Its rate is fixed at 6¼%. Always has been. No nasty surprises that way: the nasty surprise of paying for his professional success by getting fired was plenty, thank you very much. If Bob were reckless, when the home reached its maximum value he’d have opened a home equity line of credit – also known as a second mortgage, it’s a loan from the mortgage company that’s tied to the new, enhanced value of the home. At the height of the market, some people did this, which is risky if you want to use the lent money to buy assets with. It’s ultrasonically risky if you want to buy jetskis and vacations with it, yet people did. And then cried about the heartless bastards at the mortgage companies when the bills came due. Not Bob. He just continued cutting the mortgage company checks without thinking about it.

He drives a 2000 Maxima with 120,000 miles on it. Bob signed a 5-year deal, always overpaid what was due and paid it off 2 years early. He gets the oil changed every 3000 miles and has yet to add aftermarket bumper canards or tinted windows. Every Thanksgiving and every summer, Bob and Susie visit his family in the upper Midwest. They buy the tickets months in advance, saving them a few dollars more for no incremental effort.

Bob’s not wealthy, not does he have any particular desire to be. However, he has a fanatical desire to avoid being poor. While putting that into practice, he’s managed to remain in the 90-somethingth percentile of net worth in this country despite getting fired. He didn’t, and doesn’t, even have to work more than 30 hours a week to get where he and Susie are today.

When informed of his honor, Bob celebrated the news by announcing that he was on his way to a movie. With Susie. And complimentary tickets. Controlling His Cash yet again.

*Real quick: whatever you contribute to a traditional IRA is deducted from your income for tax purposes, with the interest and appreciation taxed years later when you start collecting payments. With a Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the income when you earn it, but those payments, interest and appreciation in the future will be tax-free. You can only get a Roth if you make under $95,000. Bob’s salary of 0 thus qualified him.

**This post is featured at Funny about Money**

Our non-endorsement of the week

Little Boy : Penny Stock Chaser :: Hiroshima : Your portfolio

(“Undorsement”? “Exdorsement”?)

Put your money on the keno board at the Red Lion casino in Elko, Nevada before you do business with Penny Stock Chaser.

(NB: A few weeks after this post went up, Penny Stock Chaser went out of business. Its links are dead.) Unless you’re the kind of person who’s dumb enough to be swayed by exclamation points and graphics of money on trees, in which case you should give this company a try.

At least their name is fairly expository. Penny Stock Chaser recommends cheap equities for its customers, in the hopes that said companies will increase in value. At least the company’s one discernible product – its newsletter – is free. As best we can tell, Penny Stock Chaser makes all its money from the companies that allow Penny Stock Chaser to promote their stock.

A penny stock is one that trades for under a dollar a share – that is, its price is quoted in cents. Understandably, the cheaper a stock, the greater its potential to grow – both in absolute and relative terms. Holdings of a stock that trades at 3¢ could easily double tomorrow. Berkshire Hathaway, which traded at $100,899 Friday, is not going to reach $201,798 today.

This makes inherent sense. Take the hypothetical company whose stock trades at 3¢. Let’s even assume it’s a legitimate business, as opposed to an accounting construct developed by a wayward promoter, which is what many a penny stock represents. Say the stock is just a tiny bit desirable, in that some potential buyer is willing to offer more than the current asking price. Even if that bidder expresses his interest by augmenting his bid by the smallest amount possible – one penny – the stock will rise 33%. That’s not going to happen with a stock that trades in dollars or tens of dollars, at least not instantly.

The flip side, of course, is that to attract buyers to his holdings of a stagnant 3¢ stock, a seller would have to lower his price by…well, there’s not much room for him to maneuver here. The smallest possible lowering of the price results in a 33% loss in the company’s value, which means the stock has moved 1/3 of the way toward being completely worthless. Again, that’s not going to happen with any established company whose stock trades for a decently high price.

It’s tough to qualify greed. If you volunteer for an extra shift at your job, thus earning more money, does that make you “greedy”? Only in the eyes of the least repentant Marxist. But if you expect exponential riches for doing nothing more demanding than being lucky, then yes, you’re greedy. Just because it’s slightly more respectable (and credible) to admit to being a “stock ‘investor’” than a “roulette player”, doesn’t make the former any nobler. Most of us are cognizant enough to keep the human penchant for laziness in check. For the rest of us, there’s Penny Stock Chaser. Everything about this company is loathsome, including their radio commercials in which they exclaim that every month, some companies’ stocks “literally explode!”

Check out the company’s disclaimer, which confirms our worst suspicions. Penny Stock Chaser admits, albeit under penalty of law, that it receives payment (in stock) from several of the companies it touts. A legitimate firm (Vanguard, Smith Barney) doesn’t pull that kind of crap.

Penny Stock Chaser brags that its site has been “featured on MSN and Google”. Yes, because nothing advances the credibility of a company than being visible on a search engine. You know whom else you can find on Google?
Hitler!

Penny Stock Chaser also brags that it’s been featured on XM and Sirius. Apparently Penny Stock Chaser never noticed that the companies merged, nor that the merged companies’ logo is something a little more stylized than a hand-drawn dog.

We’re not convinced that Penny Stock Chaser isn’t really an experiment in public gullibility being conducted by a graduate sociology student somewhere. However, one giveaway is the company’s verbiage. Spend enough time on PennyStockChaser.com, and it’s clear that the web copy is being written by someone with the English skills of UFC commissioner Dana White. Either that, or the World Grammar Board changed the plural of company to “companys” and didn’t tell anyone. Here’s a grammatically correct but situationally erratic gem from the company’s “About” page:

“Our team has a total of 40 years experience in the stock market…”

4 lines later, just in case you weren’t paying attention:

“Combined we have over 40 years experience in the market.”

This has nothing to do with money, but here’s a gigantic red flag: any time a company brags that it has x combined years of experience, step back. Does that mean two career veterans, or 40 rookies? All it means is that someone in your company’s HR department knows how to add. Gold star.

Your local Wal-Mart has around 700 employees. With a conservative average of 3 years’ experience per employee, that means…wow, they’ve been selling discount items since before Christ was born!

Patronizing Penny Stock Chaser will give you the equivalent of “40 years experience in the market” faster than you wanted.

Making money is easy and fun! To wit, “We don’t waste time trying to uncover ideas that might move a wimpy 5-10% in a few months like most other guys. No, we’re looking at stocks that can explode 50+% or more in a matter of days!”

Look, no one likes being financially conservative. Of course a 50% return is more attractive than a 5% return. But in the same way, no one likes being unable to fly, either. We live in something called a real world. The chance of you losing money by dabbling in penny stocks is far, far greater than the chance of you profiting. Just because something’s possible doesn’t mean that a) it’s likely or b) you can do anything to improve your odds. Some people jump out of planes with malfunctioning parachutes and survive. Which is to be marveled at from a distance, rather than emulated.

Should the SEC step in and dismantle Penny Stock Chaser for promising flying unicorns and edible rainbows? No. Our society is still largely free, and it’s up to each individual idiot to decide how badly he wants to get screwed over. Should Howard Stern show a little self-respect and not voice Penny Stock Chaser’s embarrassing radio commercials? Yes, but that’s his business. You can assume he at least insists on being paid in something more fungible than stock tips.

Fortune favors the brave, not the idiotic.

(Looking forward to Penny Stock Chaser bragging that it’s now been “featured on Control Your Cash!”)

Renting vs. owning-part 2

They don't have this problem in Shenzhou

Let’s look at our house from the previous post, but run the numbers as if we’d rented the house out instead of living in it for the last 7 years.

Income:

2003 –$12,000 ($1,000/month)
2004 –$12,300 ($1,025)
2005 –$12,600 ($1,050)
2006 –$12,900 ($1,075)
2007 –$13,200 ($1,100)
2008 –$13,200
2009 –$13,200

Total $89,400

Expenses (mortgage, taxes, insurance, management, repairs & 5% contingency):
$100,726

Loss:
$11,326

In a housing bear market, most owners fear paying out of pocket and won’t even consider renting out their properties. Those owners don’t know that the IRS lets you depreciate a rental property, giving you a tax credit. Take two identical houses, one new and the other a few years old. To calculate the IRS book value of the latter, you depreciate a certain amount (1/29 of its value for every year) from its cost price and claim that as an expense, thus reducing the income you pay taxes on.

In our example, we’ve reduced the effective worth of the house (its basis) by $41,820. We’ll have to pay taxes on this amount when the property sells. (But not necessarily – more on that next week.)

The depreciation expense turns our $11,326 loss into a non-taxable $30,494 gain.

If you’re a realtor, you can subtract the expenses you incur on your real estate investments (including depreciation) from your ordinary (wage) income, thus reducing your tax bill. A real estate license costs about $2000 to secure and requires maybe 90 hours of studying over 6 weeks, making it an investment in sheltering your income from taxes. Just getting the piece of paper that designates you as a realtor can save you money on your own transactions. It doesn’t mean you have to spend your Saturdays driving around the neighborhood showing houses to people and pretending to laugh at their jokes.

If you’re not a realtor, which you probably aren’t, you can still use $3,000 of your losses to offset income and reduce your taxes. The excess loss gets carried over to offset future real estate profits. What does that mean? Say you sell a property the following year, and are thus on the hook for capital gains taxes. You can deduct all your prior losses from your capital gains, thereby reducing next year’s tax bill. Or if you own another property that makes money this year: again, you can apply the losses from other real estate investments to offset its taxable income.

So from our example, you’d earn $3,000-$30,494 in tax-free income. If you’re in the 28% bracket, you’ll save $840-$8,538 in taxes.

In our case, we add the $8,538 to our equity of $19,210 (from the previous post), and subtract our $11,326 loss for an after-tax profit of $16,422, or $2,346 annually. That’s an annual 35.5% rate of return on our initial investment of $6,615 (down payment plus refinance costs.)

(No real estate license? Add your $840 tax savings to the $19,210 in equity, and subtract the $11,326 loss for an after-tax profit of $8,724. That’s $1,246 per year, or an annual 18.9% rate of return.)

If you buy at the right price in the right location and hold the property long term, you will make money in real estate.

Obligatory disclaimer, in case you’re one of those people who thinks our society just isn’t litigious enough: The author is not an attorney nor a tax accountant. Talk to your tax and/or legal advisor before making any investment decisions.